Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Jiwey

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. Per SNOW, strengthened by BLP concerns. See comments by contributors below. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Jiwey[edit]

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

Filing on behalf of the page creator, User:Susanjiwey. Deletion has been requested, but due to the number of other editors who have contributed to the page, G7 can't be used to speedy delete it. The page creator claims to be the article subject; this has yet to be established through OTRS, though it seems likely. In cases of borderline notability BLPs, we tend to honour the request of the subject for deletion. I myself offer no opinion on the matter one way or another. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be preferable to have an OTRS ticket verifying the request and the reasons for it, although this is no guarantee that the article will be deleted. See for example, Articles for deletion/Marina Poplavskaya. That case was slightly different in that the subject was undeniably notable and had not contributed to the article in any way. She simply objected to being on Wikipedia. With autobiographies, the subjects usually request deletion when they find they cannot control the article's contents or find it tagged with unflattering templates, e.g. [1]. I think we'll have to decide this on notability criteria alone.
Weak delete although willing to change my mind. When I first edited the article in 2010 my edit summary was "copy-edit for overly promotional and unencyclopedic language, add some inline cites but the notability is extremely marginal". There's not a lot since then which would change that assessment. There's no evidence of in-depth, significant, independent coverage of her in either the general press or the specialized opera press which would allow it to pass via the general notability guidelines. It doesn't really pass any of the alternative guidelines for musicians either. She has sung some leading roles but with pretty minor companies, e.g. Opéra de Baugé, OperaUpClose and Grange Park Opera—the latter as part of a "young artist" program. The OperaUpClose production of La bohème was performed in the 150 seat Soho Theatre [2] but did win the 2011 Olivier Award for best new opera production. No recordings with major labels, nor has she placed 1st or 2nd in a major singing competition. Voceditenore (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion as been notified to WikiProject Opera. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there are several one phrase passing mentions of her performances ("gamely dispatched by Susan Jiwey" etc) but no "significant" coverage or analysis. If the article was created by the subject and the subject does not want the article, I am all for not having another ultra low notability BLP article that we would have to maintain. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absent showing of notability The article was apparently created by the subject. The reason given in her request for speedy deletion was "inaccurate and out of date.". I did not search extensively, but the editing history appears to contain no inappropriate personal information. I think this is simply a matter of notability. If there is not sufficient ongoing information available to keep it updated it should be deleted as not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Bauder (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 October 2012

The article's subject did attempt to update it in January 2011 [3], but virtually all of the material added was removed as unreferenced COI by another editor in this series of edits. However, what had been added and removed doesn't really equate to additional evidence of notability. Voceditenore (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Fred Bauder, above. The lack of obvious notability makes this a simple call - even without the wishes of the subject in the mix. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as my default vote when a BLP of marginal or questionable notability quests deletion of an article on themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, per FredB ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem notable, and on borderline we should honour the subjects opinion.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds

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.