Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suede (singer)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There are two issues here. The first is notability (other than for the lawsuit). In this regard, opinions are divided, although all who have commented after 4meter4 have found their sources convincing, so that part of the discussion probably tends towards a keep. The second issue is privacy. That problem, to the extent it is one, does not need deletion, but can be resolved by omitting personal information from the article. Sandstein 08:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suede (singer)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is one reference on how Suede (singer) forced Suede (band) to change their trademarked name in the United States. This WP:BLP is basically a WP:SINGLEEVENT. A mention of this can be included in Suede (band) but that's about it. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per new evidence presented by User:4meter4 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or otherwise transfer the information about the trademark issues to the band's article. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot apparently this paragraph exists in Suede (band) already:

Moreover, a lounge singer's lawsuit forced the band to stop using the trademarked American name "Suede". For their subsequent releases and shows in the United States, the band used the name "The London Suede". Anderson was not happy about having to change the band's name for the US market, saying, "The London Suede is not the name I chose for the band, I didn't change it happily, and I'm not going to pretend I did." Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not notable as a singer, I can't see any part of WP:NMUSIC that she meets. The only secondary coverage I can find on her, such as this, is related to her lawsuit against the band. It could also be redirected to Suede_(band)#1992–1993:_Signing_and_early_success where the lawsuit is mentioned.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I did a quick search and found these sources [[1]][[2]], but it's not very much. I also looked up the Live at Scullers Jazz Club DVD and couldn't find any reviews. I also unsuccessfully googled her with the Kennedy Center to see if there were reviews. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge. Maryland-based jazz singer Suzanne DeBronkart a.k.a. Suede has not achieved chart success with her music. The one thing she is known for is the 1993–1994 lawsuit against the UK Suede band. WaPo gave her a bunch of column inches in 1994, describing the issue in depth. Same with BalmerSun.[3] The successful lawsuit continues to crop up in the media, giving it a sort of staying power. It came up again in 2003 when the band Suede split up.[4] There's also the 2009 SFGate piece which describes her career in moderate depth. It gets another mention in 2019 in NME. I would say 'keep' except that other aspects of DeBronkart's career have not been so heavily discussed; it's mostly the old lawsuit that keeps reporters coming back. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing to merge because the lawsuit is already discussed, with a citation, at the English band's article. One or two more footnotes may be a benefit over there, and the voters above found some. "Merge" those if desired. Otherwise this singer has not received reliable coverage except for a few gig announcements here and there. I agree with the nominator on WP:SINGLEEVENT, and some voters above are recommending a merge that is unnecessary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. I found two quality music reviews which are not about the law suit and are significant independent RS. One is an album review of her album Barely Blue which pre-dates the lawsuit and the other is a concert review from 2001 which is also not about the lawsuit. Plus it is likely other pre law suit reviews exist offline given the pre internet era. I also found an encyclopedia entry on her in an LGBTQ reference work. Apologies for no urls as I accessed these through subscription access in PROQUEST or through other resources at my university library. These sources show that Suede is independently notable of the lawsuit and BLP1E doesn’t apply. The two reviews, the encyclopedia entry, plus the RS on the lawsuit are enough to pass GNG and MUSICBIO. See below.4meter4 (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrington, Richard (4 May 2001). "SUEDE; On the Day We Met". The Washington Post. p. I6.
Joyce, Mike (31 January 1992). "Pop Soprano Suede Covering the Bases". The Washington Post. p. 14.
Jay McLaren (1992). "Suede". An encyclopaedia of gay and lesbian recordings. p. 89. more info on that ref at the University of Washington library see ([5])

Comment. @Doomsdayer520, Binksternet, Timtempleton, Pawnkingthree, 331dot, and Shushugah you may want to reconsider your position in light of the new evidence. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing that’s there is still not enough. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How? I just presented multiple independent references with significant coverage? These alone would seem to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO criteria 1. She has an encyclopedia entry for goodness sake and two reviews from respected music critics in The Washington Post. Then there is all the other quality RS about the lawsuit.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 4meter4. (The sources TimTempleton found fail criteria #1 of WP:SINGER, as the first source covers the artist talking about themselves and the second source is a performance date report.) Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have changed vote, but still need a better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV as demonstrated by the sources found by 4meter4. TJMSmith (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm sticking with my earlier "delete" vote because the subject of the biography is worried about the danger of being harassed further. Concerns include "hate mail from the British band London Suede's fans... and even bona-fide stalkers, causing me to hire security" and "restraining orders and have had to hire security because they've tracked my home and my 92 year old mother's home down by finding my birth name." The subject is so adamant about the danger posed by the biography that they extended a legal threat to Wikipedia, later rescinded once they understood the WP:NLT policy. As this is a borderline notability case, I think we should give the subject some privacy by deleting the biography page. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that the above comments are from the artist who seems to regard the article as a privacy / security threat and always likely to be updated with private information. So although notable the article should go to respect the artist's wishes in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, Suedewave has said that they do not want the article deleted. But if they are concerned about their real name continuing to appear, deletion is the obvious solution.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear and for the record - NO threat of lawsuit or legal action against wiki was ever mentioned by me or my agents. Not once. The point was made (perhaps poorly worded, thus rescinded immediately) that anyone continuing to refer to the British band London Suede as Suede after the settled Trademark violation lawsuit, wherein I was victorious, is (likely unwittingly) not honoring the agreement settled by a NY court of law. NO threat was or is being made. I am well aware that the band's agents are the ones guilty of neglecting due diligence in this matter, which IS a direct violation of the suit on their part, FWIW. The band, btw, was great during the entire tedious process as Sony dragged it on and on. Sony was sued, not the band, to be clear, for the record.

As for continuing to publish my birth name, my real concern - again, I cite Wiki's WP:BLPPRIVACY clause and re-state my respectful request to please stop doing so, to honor my privacy. Ironically, a few have correctly stated the fact that the lawsuit really has nothing to do with my now 40 year successful and ongoing career as a full-time independent artist - whether some have heard of me or not. Thank you. Suedewave (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have many BLPs on wikipedia with similar privacy concern content bans. The real names and birth dates of celebrities come to mind. The answer is often semi-protection of articles, and hidden notes advising editors not to add certain content because of WP:BLPPRIVACY policy. In other words, we have options other than deletion. This is a surmountable issue that doesn't require deletion.4meter4 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update, per WP:BOLD I went ahead and added a hidden note. In my view this should prevent further problems from happening.4meter4 (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The concerns about dates are also covered by WP:BLPDATES (don't include unless they can be reliable sourced; in addition to the privacy concerns as above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.