Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Triggs

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Triggs[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:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage, but failure to launch. scope_creep^Talk 09:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There's no evidence of significant coverage, and most of the cited refs fail WP:SINGER (Any ... publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves). While acknowledging that AfD nominations for musicians in niche genres should be treated with care, there are still genre-specific publications such as fRoots which could be cited to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind for the next time. scope_creep^Talk 13:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this comment should have any weight - looking at JPL's edits, they edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Briggs simultaneously with this one, and had 25 other edits in the previous 20 minutes. It's inconceivable that they actually had a chance to look at any of the existing references, let alone do any checks to see if they are notable. Nfitz (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd has been opened for 9 hours, so your argument doesn't make kind of sense. scope_creep^Talk 10:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does the length of time of the AFD have any relation to JPL's hit-and-run AFD contributions, where they make a snap judgment within seconds on dozens of AFDs at once, without any research? Nfitz (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is not evidence of that. He could be looking at each of one them for hours, before they voted. Your argument doesn't make an sense. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:GNG. There are multiple sources providing non-trivial coverage of the subject, that are independent of the subject and each other. While I concede the "5 minutes with" interview questions/answers don't count much towards notability, other sources, like the Herald clearly establish notability by the level of coverage of this specific person. The sources go beyond trivial mentions, like "who's playing tonight" stories (I could have added a hundred of those, but didn't). They are discussing the person and their music. --Rob (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fans on Soundcloud, Apple music, Spotify, Napster. There has be more than that and the Calgary Herald is her home town. If I saw a couple of articles in the UK Times or the Japan Times, then coverage would easily satisfy WP:GNG, but it is not there. scope_creep^Talk 18:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what if there are no fans on Soundcloud? I fully concede she is not famous. I'm saying she has had non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. That's what "GNG" is about. Notability, per GNG means that reliable sources have found her to be notable, by their coverage. BTW, somebody could have a millions fans on various websites (Soundcloud, YouTube, whatever), and still not be notable per GNG, if they haven't been written about by reliable 3rd party sources. You seem to be conflating fame with notability. The two often go together, but are in fact, quite different. Writeups in reliable sources allow us to write a proper encyclopedic article on somebody. Fans/Followers/Friends on Soundcloud, or YouTube, or whatever, do nothing whatsoever, and in fact should never be mentioned here unless they are mentioned first by reliable sources. I missed the guidelines requiring foreign coverage of an artist, please point that out to me. --Rob (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Afd rationale is premised on WP:MUSICBIO which is a much more modern policy. Why would you base on GNG, when the act is only 18 months old? The initial coverage, the reviews didn't even reach as far as the Edmond Journal, the closest newspaper. Even if she was private person, who wanted to stay out the limelight, there would still be fan page on social media, which there is very little. Hence the reason of mentioning plays/fan. It is always a good indication if the person is notable, which I don't see. If there was group producing content about her, she would be notable. It is crystal clear, she is non-notable. Even her album at: [1] is songs by other folk. Possibly in 20 years time, she might be another kind of Nick Drake sort of act; then we can get an article, but I really don't see it. Even them, there would some kind of fan groups during the interim, while she is formulating her masterpieces. It is entirely possible. scope_creep^Talk 00:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I base it on GNG, because that's the fundamental underlying guideline to notability that doesn't rely on personal opinion. Every other criterion (like achieving awards, chart success, etc...) is really just an indication that a subject is likely to garner the kind of coverage that the GNG explicitly requires. It's the substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, that makes for a worthy article. I can't prove your opinion is right or wrong, and I don't care about your opinion, and you shouldn't care about mine. I just care what the sources indicate. They seem to indicate notability here. We should never put our opinions ahead of the sources. As for likes/follows/views, you do know those can be purchased, right? Anyhow, could you clarify what you mean by "the act is only 18 months old". --Rob (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when the deletion argument is that ~~GNG trumps MUSICBIO~~ MUSICBIO trumps GNG (it doesn't), and the proponent admits it meets GNG, then we are done here. I see references to her in multiple publications in ProQuest from 2011 to 2019 and in Google News into 2020. Nfitz (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC) (oops ... got that backwards ...) Nfitz (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first page of references on Proquest, 20 of them. in fact, all of them are the Galgary Herald or the Calgary Sun, apart of 2 which are obituaries and 1 some academic stuff. Google News is reflecting the same information; info about a local band. Hardly the global coverage that is expected or WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 00:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably depends on your database. The second hit I get (sorted by relevance) is the 2012 magazine article (that's already referenced in the article. Hit 6 and 7 are from the Fort Macleod Gazette - which is hardly local, a hundred miles away. Hit 14 and 17 are from the Lethbridge Sun Times, a similar distance away. Meanwhile the Calgary Herald and Calgary Sun are major daily papers, in a city of over a million people. There's substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The stuff on Google News looks brief and recent ... including hits from CBC News and Global News. Nfitz (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please quote the part of GNG that requires "global" coverage, and please explain what you meant by "the act is only 18 months old"? Are we reading different guidelines and articles? --Rob (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Macleod Gazette at 100 miles, proverbially speaking, its the same as being in conversation with somebody in the next room. A 1 million person city is small. It doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV by a long shot. On WP:NPP every day, as far as I can see, I reckon there is about 50-70 new bands that get new articles. They are on a scale of being extremly recognisable, to fail. to the mediocre. At the one end of the scale, you have bands/singers that are feted, have huge presence on social media, are on all music streaming services like Spotify, Apple music and so on, within weeks or months of forming are generally by that time huge and are visible everywhere. At the other scale you small bands who have been signed and perhaps put out an album, a great album perhaps, they have cultist following or one of two song that get millions of plays. That's is not the case either here, but that would saved it. Further to the end of scale are bands that are signed but fail to launch, or get some local coverage as there a few people who perhaps like the music. That is the case here. If she was so successful, you wouldn't need ProQuest to prove it. scope_creep^Talk 08:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have a set of criterion that completely ignores Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly WP:SIGCOV which you keep linking to, but have not read. You need to actually base your opinions on actual policy and guidelines, as this is NOT a vote. Since you never answered, I'll assume the "18 months old" comment is based on a misreading of the article. --Rob (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob: Thanks for spotting that mistake. No I don't ignore policy. I just happen to do a lot of these Afd's, mostly posted from NPP and I review a lot of bands on NPP. Here all you see, is the home town newspapers reporting on the act and nothing else. News of the act couldn't even reach Seattle. For me it is the very definition of non-notable. It is not really 2008 anywhere, when manual searches were the order of the day. Tools like Social Blade, can tell how exactly successful a person is on social media. There is no presence visible. Two albums and no fans?? scope_creep^Talk 12:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does a foreign country have to do with anything? You are making up criteria. There is significant coverage in two major, well-known, daily newspapers. It's not like a few mentions in a community newspaper along-side some local pensioners in a play. Nfitz (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like this a case of WP:TOOSOON. Since while she's garnered some media attention it's mostly minor and in local newspapers. There's no regional or national coverage that would be required for her to be notable. Also, her music hasn't charted anywhere and the article seems like it's relying a little to much on name dropping etc for my taste. So, there's nothing here that passes MUSICBIO or the GNG from my perspective. BTW, I really don't feel like getting into to a nonsensical discussion about how two local newspapers should be combined into a single regional one or anything along those lines. AfDs aren't the place for those types of policy debates. So just save it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really find the sources presented to be satisfactory. She may have regional or local appeal, but typically we expect a group to have an exceptional regional coverage and all but exclude local coverage unless someone points out that the literal wording of the GNG would even cover the local moms' magazine. I don't think having a hyper-literal interpretation of the GNG on this is a good thing, especially as this is a BLP, where we normally have somewhat higher standards. Failing MUSICBIO is additional reason to be suspect of the notability here, and in my view should be seen as stronger evidence in favour of deletion, but even if you want to go by a GNG-alone analysis (which I don't advocate), I think this should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2020 (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.