Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa VanFleet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Article improvement during the AFD seemingly addressed the concerns of the delete !voters. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa VanFleet[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Melissa VanFleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is she notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am doubtful of the notability of this young lady. She seems cute and all, but unfortunately, I think she is not notable for Wikipedia as of yet. I am not satisfied with the sourcing - the majority of them are youtube, concert sites and PR pieces, and in most of them she gets relatively little notice (the bigger part in some of the text of the cited sources is not even about her). During a Google search I only found the usual suspects: youtube, databases, streaming links, blank Allmusic page, retail sites, concert sites, blogs (with either interviews or most likely copy-pasted PR text, and all of these blogs are relatively short in content), and download links. While the article creator had more edits, the majority of them revolve around Ms. Melissa (for example, including her on the list of notable people named Melissa, linking her name in a festival page, linking her name in the articles of Lacuna Coil and WASP, etc.) so I suspect there is some COI involved as well (also, the name of the user, "VMetalMedia" does not fill me up with confidence either). I also think this is a classic case of refbombing: citing a ton of sites to make the subject appear notable, but the vast majority are puff/PR pieces and social media. Prove me wrong, but I am not sure she is notable for WP as of yet. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SOAP, appears to be the product of music PR, cites are poor quality, dead-links, non-WP:RS links, editorial commentary resting on Youtube links, if you pulled all that stuff out, there's not much left to support notability. Acousmana (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, mostly passing or brief mentions or and it's almost refbombing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think the nominator and previous voters are being a little harsh, as Ms. VanFleet does have some media notice for unconventional covers of, and collaborations with, more notable musicians. However, there is not yet enough evidence of her own independent notability. Outside of the article's attempted ref-bombing with YouTube videos and the like, there are some music journalism sources that mention her, but they are mostly friendly interviews that were probably set up by management, or brief mentions in articles that are about other people. If she moves into more original music of her own, and if it gets noticed in its own right, she might have a chance at notability in the future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:BASIC, and because I have been working on this article, and have added a source that notes her music career began when she was a child, as well as sources confirming that after she became an adult, she has been noticed by her peers in the music industry as well as a variety of reviews and in-depth interviews, particularly for her more recent music. Per WP:NMUSICOTHER, it also looks like she is "frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture." Also, this article was accepted out of AfC, and concerns about the style of writing or how references are organized can be addressed through editing, and dead links may be able to be found through archive.org. Beccaynr (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:HEY, 7&6=thirteen and I have made substantial revisions to the article, including the rescue of many dead links, and trimming of references and information, which should make the frequency that VanFleet is covered by publications devoted to the sub-culture more clear. Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," and the sources are far more often reviewing, interviewing, and reporting on her as the primary subject. The coverage is also WP:SUSTAINED over time, from her 2013 EP through her more recent work in 2019. Beccaynr (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some coverage and some fans, being going for almost a decade but still not broken through. Her one song with plenty of plays on YouTube is a cover version. Her own stuff isn't really been seen. Nothing on Spotify, Soundcloud, Napster, Amazon Music. No fans, no plays. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creepTalk 15:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: Okay, I got it. I was just trying to be nice. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't know. Some of the new sources look okay (the length of the text is great, and they are actually about her), but my problem is, I don't know how reliable they are (said sites do not appear on the list of reliable and unreliable sources about music). Others are interviews, which are generally considered unreliable, I think. But this is just my view, someone who knows better will probably correct me, which I gladly accept. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The interviews of VanFleet often include commentary, information, and/or reviews from the interviewer, so they are not simply primary sources per WP:BASIC, i.e. "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." There are also quotes from three musicians, including Scott Rockenfield of Queensrÿche and Cristina Scabbia of Lacuna Coil, discussing VanFleet's talent, which is secondary source commentary that contributes to her notability. Ultimate Guitar appears to be a large and well-known website (and appears on WP:RSMUSIC), and seems to have focused on a theme that is now more apparent and developed in the article, with their 2016 interview, "Meet Melissa VanFleet Who Progressed From Making Metal Covers on YouTube to Working With Big Names." Beccaynr (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, due to the addition of sources and revisions to the article, there also appears to be WP:ENT notability due to VanFleet's "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Beccaynr (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't help on the reliability of these music sources. I only occasionally work on music-related articles, e.g., Neil Peart and Dr. John, which weren't good enough to get into WP:ITN, despite their import and how actually good the articles and sources were at the time. That is a different process with its own peculiar standards. In particular, they are perverse, in that when you have a very prolific artist, with tons of oeuvre, they want every one of the works cited; and they want the works to be listed, too. The citations need to be done in short order, or than it is deemed to be stale. So it is a geographic miracle, where the destination is out of reach no matter the route.
And I have even less to say about the reliability of Italian language music magazines.
Given the breadth, depth and scope of the many sources from around the world, she surpasses WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr: I have seen the Ultimate Guitar one, and a Spanish language one. I also think those are reliable. I have also seen the one with Scott and Cristina, I wasn't sure about that, but if you say it's good, it's acceptable, then it's okay. Like I said, there are editors who knows this stuff better than me. Thank you. I think the article can be kept now, but if anyone else still has an opinion, they can post it here. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the HEY work done by Beccaynr and 7&6 has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Or very least another round to account for major renovations mid-term. -- GreenC 17:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article has been improved since nomination with content referenced to multiple reliable sources such as print magazines and Ultimate Guitar so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recent work has added numerous sources which demonstrate general notability. Thriley (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources found and added to the article confirm this person is a notable entertainer. Dream Focus 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems well referenced and a notable performer. I believe her page can remain. LindaSaunders (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melissa_VanFleet&oldid=1011138293"