Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Shearing

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 no consensus. Just barely on the fence for WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Shearing[edit]

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

Speedied twice, but this seems to make an assertion of notability and use some potentially reliable sources. I think an AfD is needed. Daniel Case (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRYSTAL. She's clearly not 'made it' yet. As a side comment, clicks are cheap; new media is playing havoc as journalists don't quite know how to handle internet memes and this type of "net-celebs" Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - The sources suggest the subject is probably noteworthy, so ideally the article should be improved (so as to remove, for example, execrable drek about "tak[ing] her music to the next level"). In practice, of course, this ~~never~~ rarely happens, usually because editors have better things to do than write better ad copy to assist spammers, so the spammer typically succeeds in using Wikipedia to flog their wares, as the subject's record label has done in this case. More evidence, if any more were actually needed, that COI editors should be prohibited, not merely discouraged, from creating articles related to their conflict. [Dismount soapbox]. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the prose, to the point where I felt comfortable removing the tags. I think all we really need to check are the sources (I think we should keep, really, as we've kept other YouTube stars without record deals due to some similarly high amount of views).

As to the article creator, I've blocked his accounts twice. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Delete - Could be big, but until her 1st record comes out I'm seeing only speculation on her work. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Musical artist without any official recordings or product. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- WikHead (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online fom WP:Reliable sources, but much evidence of an astroturf marketing campaign. Shire Reeve (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wilke, Stephen (18 November 2010), "19M HITS WILL MAKE WILL MAKE BEX A STAR", Daily Star - "YouTube girl's deal", The Sun, 13 December 2007 - "Rebecca is set for stardom", Daily Star, 13 December 2007 - "Shot at fame for web star", The Daily Express, 13 December 2007. None are that strong but the 3 year diff between the first burst and the later article suggests longevity. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - passes WP:MUSICBIO, if only marginally. I can't help but think this article is a bit premature - she hasn't released her first single yet - but the significant coverage in reliabe sources is there. Robofish (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:34, 31 March 2011 (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.