Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna-Lynne Williams (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) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Lynne Williams[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)

Questionable WP:BIO notability and the article appears to serve the primary purpose of being an extension of the subject's publicity. Multiple single purpose accounts have edited the articles: Teaandcake48 and Amodelme. An IP editor identifying to be the subject made edits removing age information to moderate contents to suite her interests diff which suggests the subject exerts excessive amount of control and turns it into musical career resume/CV. Additional edits are made by Saintlouprecords, a label under the subject's control. It should be deleted as it primarily serves advertising interest and the notability is not that significant. Graywalls (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Nominating statement is wholly disingenuous. The article currently contains several RS's, and a Google search shows several more which could be utilized. The article has not been "extensively edited" by the subject or record labels. I am one of the primary authors, and have no connection to the subject or label--other than being a fan. And I see no issue with the subject removing her birth year. In fact, she has every right to, if she so wishes. That's her only confirmed involvement, as far as I can see, in the article, BTW. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor also added contents.. that she actually wants on there. [1]. Search result shows she controls Saintlouprecords. Edits were made under that account. Also, a few other single purpose accounts edited the article. Graywalls (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a diff of the IP adding 2 newish releases to the discography section. I would have done that myself, had I known at the time. The extent of the IP's activity seems to consist solely of it removing her age from the infobox, and adding those 2 new releases. I don't see a problem with any of that, necessarily. And I'm not sure about Saint Loup Records—it seems to be a label with multiple artists in their repertoire. If the underlying problem is that the article contains possible fancruft and/or unsourced content, I can confirm it doesn't, with the only exception being that I can't find RS's for all of the collaborations. The article needs cleanup, not deletion. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

http://saint-louprecords.blogspot.com/ and also see "about" in https://www.amazon.com/Anna-Lynne-Williams/e/B008BYASQI . It's a company under her control. Edits through three single purpose accounts and also through IP, I'd say the extent of contents control by the subject is strong enough to suggest considerable promotional intentions. And the notability appears rather marginal. I don't know if bigtakeover.com, popmatters.com and such sites are considered reliable source for notability building purposes... Add: also see Teaandcake48 (talk · contribs), and Amodelme (talk · contribs). When there are multiple single purpose accounts, in addition to the subject's direct invovlement, there's usually a promotional intention of the article's existence.

Graywalls (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit made by those two accounts you've linked to were undone almost instantly. And those sources are indeed reliable, and every one of them - with the exception of the sources used to reference her collaborations - talk about Anna/Lotte as the primary subject. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - First, I wonder if this article should actually be titled Lotte Kestner because that is the name under which she currently releases music; the intro could then state that she previously sang for Trespassers William under her given name Anna-Lynne Williams. Under the name Lotte Kestner she has received some reliable coverage: [2], [3], [4], and there are a few more items on collaborations that she did under her given name, such as [5]. Admittedly it's not much but possibly enough for a stub article. Also, if there is a conflict of interest in the writing of the article, that is better addressed with an edit tag and removal of blatantly promotional language. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The most significant coverage she has received as a solo artist has been under the name Lotte Kestner. She is only addressed by her birth name as a member of Trespassers William or Ormonde, although most reliable sources refer to those bands as a singular ("Trespassers William on tour"; "Ormonde releases new album", etc.) I think using (her more popular name) Lotte Kestner may help expansion in the long run, and can't foresee any issues arising from this... so long as Anna-Lynne Williams remains as a redirect to Lotte Kestner. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doomsdayer520. She seems to pass WP:GNG, and the article should be expanded rather than deleted. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources listed by Doomsdayer, also pop matters is a reliable source as identified by WikiProject Music. The tone of the article can be readjusted if it is considered promotional, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2019 (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.