Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamilah Gibson

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamilah Gibson[edit]

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

Musician whose only claim of notability is appearing in amateur talent competitions, and whose only sourcing is the website of the organization that staged said talent competitions (i.e. a primary source). As always, she can have an article if and when she actually accomplishes something that gets her past WP:NMUSIC — but as of today, she has not done so according to what's written here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have added other sources to the article. She also was featured on 2 radio shows. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This makes her notable because of what is stated in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Comment~~ – the article makes it look like she had a string of successes, but actually it was just one event of several rounds. The sources just cover this and the media interviews that accrued from it. So this could be considered WP:BLP1E. ~~I'm not sure whether~~ The interviews don't amount to "substantial coverage" other than in the context of this one event. ~~This is a close call, especially as she has aspirations to turn professional.~~ Personally, I think this article is premature. Userfy? --Stfg (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, this is a clear case of BLP1E. The event covered is an amateur one, and she wasn't the winner or runner-up. Plenty of people get interviewed on radio after such events; imho this doesn't establish notability. The likely effect of this article is not so much to inform as to promote. It's certainly nowhere near WP:NMUSIC and I think it's still some way off WP:GNG. --Stfg (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She did win some events. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier rounds of the one event, if I understand the sources right. --Stfg (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stfg, You are correct. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each round within a single competition does not constitute a separate "event" for the purposes of whether a person gets past WP:BLP1E or not; the whole competition is one event. Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate competitions. If you win one you can compete in another but they are separate competitions. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you say Stfg was correct in characterizing them as multiple rounds of one event? And anyway, even if we accept them as multiple events there's still the matter of her failing to meet WP:NMUSIC as things currently stand. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And "If you win one you can compete in another" implies that they are rounds of one competition. Yes, in a multi-round competition, one competes separately in each round, but that is merely sophistry. --Stfg (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see that point. I guess they are different rounds of the same event. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable under sections 12 and 1 of WP:NMUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's essentially what we're discussing. Note that these criteria only say "may be notable". The interviews are ruled out by the exclusion of "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". Ref 1 comes under the exclusion "articles that simply report performance dates". Ref 5 is YouTube, which is not accepted as a reliable source. As to section 12, I'm not seeing evidence that she "has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." Note that the interviews are excluded from that. That leaves the Tribune 242 source. It isn't multiple, and it covers only the Apollo event. I remain convinced that we're looking at a WP:BLP1E that fails WP:NMUSIC. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 5 has been removed. Why are the interviews excluded. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, WP:MUSICBIO excludes "... publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". --Stfg (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:54, 25 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.