Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonnie (Singer)

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 speedy delete. Per G4. Repeatedly recreating this page is not a valid way to contest previous deletions. Use deletion review instead. So Why 08:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonnie (Singer)[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Contested prod. Article was speedied and deleted only a few months ago. All the sources appear to be unreliable and can find no reliable coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personally tried finding references and could find nothing outside of World Book & News, which is a free press release site. Pianotech (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am starting to think that this is a bias judgment. As I have presented before the article should meet general standards as other articles, such as --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmine_Villegas Concerning the source, while WorldBookAndNews does allow you to submit to the site, the submissions are reviewed by there editors and must be found truth and reliable before being posted on the site read up on there guidelines. Also I think it would only be fair for editors who have not been previously associated with this topic to post here to 100% bias free. (Whitetiger01 (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

reply The World Book & News front page says "Submit free press release. See your news here immediately." The singer could very well be notable, and I hope that is the case. I'm just saying that notability has not been demonstrated yet, imo. Pianotech (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply I understand that, but has anyone tired to submit anything there? It will tell you that artcle must be reviewed first and proven true before being posted on the site. Even TV news stations allow you to submit press releases, but that doesn't mean they should be looked at as unreliable. With all due respect for everyone commenting in here, I thought the artlce was fine with that tags that were previously placed on it, until more sources become available. It has only been what? A day since it's creation. (Whitetiger01 (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

For an answer to "but has anyone tired to submit anything there", see my comment below, which gives an indication just how much an article there must be "reviewed first and proven true". JamesBWatson (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will be leaving this up to the other editors that comment. I have tried so hard to get this article accepted, that I'm just done fussing with anyone. All that I ask is that the editors that were involved with the previous page stay out of this because I strongly feel there is bias with them. That is all. (Whitetiger01 (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete and salt title variants. Wikipedia cannot exclude editors from deletion debates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Qwertyus (talk • contribs) 15:35, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Keep Subject proves to be notable IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.15.224 (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — 166.137.15.224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Subject proves to be notable IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.93.228 (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — 67.87.93.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and salt. Various forms of this article have been deleted at least eleven times (4 times under the title Nonnie berard, 3 times under the title Nonnie Berard, 3 times under the title Nonnie, and once under the title Nonnie Berard (Entertainer)). It has been salted under at least two titles (Nonnie berard and Nonnie Berard). There has been at least one previous AfD resulting in "delete" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonnie berard). The creator of the present version (Whitetiger01) was blocked for 48 hours for "Persistently creating non-notable articles, despite warnings". During the block this editor contacted me by email indicating a wish to re-create the article. Since then I have put a significant amount of time into checking the sources Whitetiger01 has given, searching for other sources, and carefully explaining to Whitetiger01 what would be acceptable for an article, and what is not acceptable about the present one. Whitetiger01 has removed my comments from their talk page, but they are visible here. In the email to me, Whitetiger01 wrote "Someone told me that it could be fixed with just one reliable source" and duly gave just one source. That source was uploaded to the site "World Book and News" at 23:29 on 7 July 2010, and emailed to me a few hours later. I explained that one very brief source was not enough, and Whitetiger01 then found two slightly longer sources from the same web site. Those two sources were uploaded to the site on 8 July 2010, and cited in the Wikipedia article on 9 July. I then explained that we had three sources all from the same site, and that site was not reliable. Whitetiger01 then came up with another source, from a different non-reliable site. We have now got five references. Three of these are to "World Book and News", to which anyone can submit material. Despite what Whitetiger01 says, this site does very little in the way of checking information submitted. To test the reliability of the site I have submited an "article" to that site. My submission was accepted, despite lacking context, sources, or anything at all that would enable it to be verified. You may read it here. Of the other two "references" in the article, one is a post on a wiki, and the other one is to the singer's fan site. The Wiki post was uploaded on 9 July by 174.69.219.214 (this IP has also edited the Wikipedia article), and it was cited in the WP article on 10 July. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Salt, etc. - I have seen articles on Ms. Berard go through this process already but I had no idea there have been so many attempts. Kudos to JamesBWatson for the great historical analysis above. To Ms. Berard's supporters, nobody here has anything against the lady but she has not yet achieved enough in her career to be the subject of a verifiable research-oriented encyclopedia article. She has earned the right to be promoted by organizations that might be able to make her more notable in the future, and when that happens maybe it'll be time for a Wikipedia article. So for now, just give it a rest and devote your energies toward promoting the lady's future career through channels that are meant for promotion. Wikipedia isn't one of them so stop trying. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Serious lack of reliable sources to establish notability. - Whpq (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Seems to meet if even just barely, minimal notable standards. (SharkEmpress13 (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)) — SharkEmpress13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

— SharkEmpress13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- a "strong" keep for "barely" meeting the standards? Perhaps you can explain how the person meets notability standards. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Alike you, I have seen previous profiles of Ms. Berard and all I've seen is improvement as some of the other editors have even emitted. I know this is a part of Wikipedia notable policy, but in my opinion simply being signed to a major recording label (2 in Ms. Berard's case), when compared to have many people singers in the world(Millions upon millions) fail to reach that point, is at least enough to warrant a Wikipedia account, well at least imo. (SharkEmpress13 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Weak Keep I'm on the fence, but leaning more towards keeping. Subject seems to warrant notability. (SteelFighter (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)) — SteelFighter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

— SteelFighter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Comment - On what basis does this seem to warrant notability? -- Whpq (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 and salt per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonnie berard, per [1], per [2], per [3] etc. So tagged. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Every one of the "keep" comments has been made either by the creator of the article or by a user (either registered or IP) with no edits at all before the day on which they commented here.

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.