Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thao Nguyen (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thao Nguyen

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

Was deleted back in 2006. There have been an additional album with Mirah since then (Thao + Mirah). Still doesn't seem sufficiently notable to me. (I was tempted to also include Mirah and Thao + Mirah in this deletion nomination, but Mirah appears to marginally sufficiently notable to me, although I'd like folks here to also discuss those two articles slightly; I will nominate them separately (or someone else can nominate them) if the general opinion is that Mirah is also not sufficiently notable.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Try clicking on the Google search link above (to the right of 'Find sources') and in the first few pages you should find coverage from Mother Jones ([1]), Allmusic (see also multiple reviews there and evidence of plenty of releases on very significant labels), Pitchfork Media (multiple), The New Yorker, Interview, SF Weekly, The Washington Post. Maybe brushing up on notability guidelines and WP:BEFORE would be advisable. --Michig (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These independent label musicians often get a very short spurt of coverage from multiple sources — and then die away as far as mainstream coverage is concerned. WP:15M applies, I believe. --Nlu (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. On further thought, I think a problem with the "keep" argument that Michig is making is this: these lesser-known, independent-label musicians are effectively analogous to minor league athletes, who actually likely have hundreds more mainstream references in newspapers, TV, radio, &c. references, not only locally, but in national sources. Yet, a consensus judgment call has been made that not only are they not notable just based on those references, but they are presumptively not notable unless they make it to the majors, except in the cases of major coverage despite the not making it to the majors. WP:NMUSIC's "per se notable" criteria effectively serves as a "make it to the majors" analog, and while I consider them somewhat over inclusive, I'm not going to quibble with the consensus there. Yet when someone/some group doesn't make it on those criteria, I question how, in particular when the person/group does not draw coverage outside music publications, whether WP:GNG can be at all invoked. I'd consider them presumptively non-notable unless they make it to one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria. --Nlu (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, click on the search link. These boilerplate responses suggest as little thought has gone into them as the original nominations. --Michig (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And I did. And by the time you get to the third screen of search results, the results are beginning to be about other Thao Nguyens. That doesn't speak well for her notability. (Not to mention that the first- and second-screen search results are the exact type of coverage I was referring to; local or so trade-specific that really, I was thinking, "you think that this artist is somehow justifiably satisfying GNG"? This is where your knowledge in the music scene may be blinding you to the fact that the person is really utterly non-notable generally. --Nlu (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A musician does not have to be a mainstream Top 40 pop star to count as notable for our purposes, nor does she have to be the only person who comes up in a Google search on her name. Among those "first three pages" sources that you want to dismiss as "local or trade-specific", I see NPR, The New Yorker, Interview and Mother Jones — solid sources all — and if I keep going past page three I also hit The Washington Post, Spin, Rolling Stone, Paste, Magnet, Exclaim!, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and USA Today. She absolutely does meet our inclusion rules; the only real question here is whether we need a separate article about her or can make do with a redirect to her band. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, this article's lack of really substantive detail doesn't really convince me that we actually need a separate article about her, when we could just as easily merge it into Thao & The Get Down Stay Down. (It was, in fact, a redirect from 2008 until just over a month ago, when an IP number created a new standalone article, for reasons I can't really seem to grok given that there isn't that much content here, and the band's article, while more detailed than this, still isn't exactly bursting at the seams with content either.) That said, Nlu genuinely does seem to be arguing from a position of "indie musicians are automatically non-notable because they're indie" — if that's what they intended, then they need to understand that it's absolutely not the case, and if it isn't what they intended then they need to phrase themselves a bit more carefully. But what it comes down to, ultimately, is this: certainly she's notable enough to warrant coverage in Wikipedia, but the article as written is not detailed or substantial enough that it needs to stand alone as a separate topic from her band. Redirect to Thao & The Get Down Stay Down. See below. Bearcat (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both the group and the individual easily pass WP:GNG, but merging to the article on the band is a possibility; The band article already contains a fair amount of detail on Nguyen herself. Both articles need work - I'll dig further into the sources and see what can be done with the two articles, and if after that it looks like covering the group and the individual in a single article looks best then fair enough. --Michig (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Michig has improved the article, such that it is now significantly more detailed and better-sourced than it was at the time I posted my original comment. Accordingly, I am striking my original conclusion and am now down with the keep. Nice job. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've done a lot of work on the article. I still have 50+ usable sources to work through which will allow expansion of this article, the band article, and articles on the albums. It's going to take some time to go through all of those, so regarding whether to merge or keep separate articles, it would be better to make this judgment after this has been completed. I will likely turn up additional sources if/when my HighBeam account is renewed and when the Google News Archive is back up. --Michig (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Lots of solid sources evidencing notability. At this point, I think this and the band article have sufficient material to warrant separate articles, but, given the overlap, a careful merger of the band article into this one could also work. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2014 (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.