Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Starland (3rd 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Starland[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)

Fails WP:NMUSICBIO. Hotpot for WP:PROMOTION, apparently. Previously deleted, for context. No apparent independent, verifiable sources covering subject. Only press releases with passing mention exist. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. — Karnataka ^talk 19:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Web sources look to be content farms, possibly malicious websites, or dead links. It also seems like there is an aggressive campaign by other editors to keep these links up even after revision or deletion. 69.113.144.213 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for Keep. This article has been verified by numerous sources including major publications such as Forbes, Billboard, Authority Magazine, CBS local and others. The recent announcement of Wendy Starland winning the popular music competition show Banded: The Musician Competition in the press explains the increased traffic to her Wikipedia page, since the show is syndicated and is airing to over 250 million households. There have been repeated attacks and vandalism to this page that go against Wikipedia's policies. All copyright permissions and licenses can be found at the bottom of each of the pages on:

== https://www.wendystarland.com/music ==

== https://www.wendystarland.com/campaigns-modeling ==

== https://www.wendystarland.com/art ==

== https://www.wendystarland.com/television ==

== https://www.wendystarland.com/wendy-starland ==

The following primary credible sources that validate most of the information in the article can found through these links:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/allysonportee/2023/06/19/wendy-starland-the-woman-that-discovered-and-developed-lady-gaga-talks-fashion-and-music/?sh=7f95a0b63d92

https://medium.com/authority-magazine/inspirational-women-in-hollywood-how-wendy-starland-is-helping-to-shake-up-the-entertainment-256dafedeb37 Duanepem (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC) (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Delete and salt per nom, hasn't been improved since its 2014 deletion Nswix (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep subject has Billboard and CBS News coverage. However, many of other sources are not so good.Naomijeans (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage looks real and verifiable, but everything about her seems to relate to Lady Gaga. There is nothing else of note and I'm not sure that is enough information for an article. She is mentioned on the Lady Gaga article and I think that's really all that is pertinent from an encyclopedic POV. 69.113.144.213 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have listed the article at WP:CP, as everything currently in the article is copied from her website. The problem appears to be foundational to this iteration, but does not extend into the version of the article that we previously deleted. — Diannaa (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the copyright holders have released the source webpages under a compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support of Delete. Per nom. Almost nothing is written on the article except for the infobox and a large possible copyright template. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 01:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that that wouldn't be grounds for deletion @Layah50, as there are prior extant versions with content, and source assessment is done off all existing sources, whether (currently) in article or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the copyright notice was placed yesterday when Diannaa (see above) discovered copied text from other websites, but before that the article had some real text on Ms. Starland. That text should be the basis of discussions of her notability and could possibly be re-written if she is in fact notable. See this: [1]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This one is really straining my philosophy of being an honest and ethical voter, because I have no regard for an article that was probably written by the person herself and is/was overly dependent on junk sources. But I must admit that Ms. Starland has been covered by the reliable Billboard and CBS (noted by a voter above), while I also found coverage in Forbes ([2]) and Medium ([3]). Outside of music she also has some notice in the fashion press, such as ([4]). One problem for us is that her attempts at music and painting are absolutely non-notable, but she might squeak by the requirements at WP:ENTERTAINER given high-profile coverage for a Lady Gaga-related lawsuit and various other celebrity-ish endeavors. Just barely, that is. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Side Note - If the article is kept, someone will have to volunteer to rewrite her biography from scratch and without the giant copyright violation. If nobody is immediately interested, maybe Draftifying is a viable solution. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Permissions & Licenses- All copyright permissions and licenses can be found at the bottom of each of the pages on:

== https://www.wendystarland.com/music ==

== https://www.wendystarland.com/campaigns-modeling ==

== https://www.wendystarland.com/art ==

== https://www.wendystarland.com/television ==

== https://www.wendystarland.com/wendy-starland == Duanepem (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP1E at best. Even if "discovered Lady Gaga" is actual personal notability rather than by association, and I'm not convinced except that that's really what so many sources keep trumpeting, that's all she really has. Could mention her in Lada Gaga's page. DMacks (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...and salt, given recreation after AFD-deletion, and 15+-year history of COI editing/self-promotion and sock-puppetry. DMacks (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wendystarland, which includes an SPA here at the AFD. DMacks (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See video proof of Lady Gaga crediting Wendy Starland for discovering her on the podium at The Songwriter's Hall Of Fame Awards ceremony: https://www.wendystarland.com/music Duanepem (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC) (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
It might have been a slip of the tongue but in that video, credit is definitely given to "Wendy Starlet", not "Wendy Starland". Dorsetonian (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So...she wasn't really honored at the Songwriter's Hall of Fame? She was just shouted out? Weak. Sounds like a typical Hollywood hanger-on reaching for relevancy. 69.113.144.213 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT. I might have !voted Weak Keep if the claims made in the article could be taken at face value, but something fishy is going on here and I am not sure they can. The bulk of the article claims just don't seem to stack up; if this person was anything like as successful as claimed they'd be a household name and there would be lots of coverage of them in reliable sources - they're not, on both counts. It stretches credulity to the point where it feels like this might be a complete hoax; I'm even beginning to wonder how much the one thing sources can be found for (that she "discovered" Lady Gaga) can be believed as well. But even assuming it's all above board, I would still say this is a case of WP:BLP1E and should only be mentioned in the Lady Gaga page. Given that it is mentioned in the Lady Gaga page, there is no need to merge. SALT because of the past recreations and obvious promotion taking place, any attempt at a new article should be vetted by going through the WP:AfC process. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the sense this lady hired some sort of company to spoof her Wikipedia view numbers (although going wayyy overboard to the point that it rung a few alarm bells among editors) and make it seem like she is bigger than she is, although why they would try to fake her credentials through phony articles and dead links is beyond me. The only real notable things about her is "finding" Lady Gaga and then winning a case against Gaga's then-producer to say she was the one who found her. The rest of her work seems to be A&R and commercial work, which isn't really notable enough for a Wikipedia page.

The sock puppet accounts mentioned something about some overseas music competition show she's on, so maybe she's trying to make herself seem like a bigger star to please the producers of the show? I don't know, this has been a wild ride. I originally thought this was some weird AI celebrity experiment until I saw she was a real person. I just want to know what the hell is going on, haha. 69.113.144.213 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:BIO1E. The remaining coverage is largely self-published, interviews and passing mentions (and deadlinks). MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:30, 5 August 2023 (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.