Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra Naomi

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Naomi[edit]

Does not meet any of WP:BAND. Not associated with a Label, no articals specifically and only about Terra. Brian (How am I doing?) 21:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment <whistle>, this one is right on the borderline. Granted she does not have a label, but in the West Coast indie music scene that is not necessarily the same indicator of notablity it might be elsewise. I just e-mailed my friend who is an indie music guru. If he's never heard of her, I'm going to vote delete... --Jaysweet 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per my comment above, I asked my friend that is way into all kinds of indie music, and he's never heard of her. That, together with Brian's points above, has me convinced. --Jaysweet 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'm right on the edge here. Based on resources I can find on-line, I think the subject technically fails WP:BAND, so I guess I am just barely sticking with a "delete" vote -- but frankly, I believe Wikipedia would be a better place if the article was kept. The artist is known by a fairly wide group of people, and I think one could argue that the unconventional way she achieved this (i.e. via YouTube) is notable in and of itself... --Jaysweet 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep As pointed out by Ezra, artist appears on soundtrack of notable movie, thereby satisfying WP:BAND. That's all I needed to see. --Jaysweet 14:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Studerby 21:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anger22 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KNOWLEDGE needs to be increased never DELETED, if Wikipedia needs space i will donate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Energyshelf (talk • contribs)
Comment I'm a bit of an inclusionist myself, but as long as Wikipedia is 100% free, I'll abide by the rules of those signing the checks -- and quietly lobby for change in the meantime. If I Were King(TM), we'd keep this article... but as per the nom, this pretty clearly fails WP:BAND, and since I ain't Jimbo Wales, I feel the right thing to do is vote delete. Them's the rules. --Jaysweet 22:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i understand the rules and Jimbo Wales, but rules have always been broken for at least the last 100 million years. Maybe Youtube has CHANGED the rules and thank God that Microsoft never dominated Encylopedias...
  • i have product on Youtube, and won't write about myself, yet...
  • do any wiki rules take into account short shelf space (or disc space)
  • and when can i buy the complete English Wikipedia on a DVD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Energyshelf (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep - the truly independent music world is characterized by the phenomenon that you've never heard of most of the people in it. I've never heard of her either but she seems notable to me. As it happens, Terra Naomi has what can be called significant internet prescence; 193,000 hits [1] (compare to established article topics like The Robot Ate Me with 113,000 and The Olivia Tremor Control with 198,000), attention in the blogosphere [2] , and even an appearance in the Internet Archives way back from 2004 [3]. She's done national tours [4], and has even been interviewed on U.S. newschannel CNBC [5]. I'd like to see the non-notability but it isn't there. Keep per WP:MUSIC --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Before youtube allowed established and/or notable singers such as Diddy and <cough> Paris Hilton to have their own account Terri Naomi was the most subscribed to musician on the site [6]. Given the notoriety and internet sensationalism of the site (see Lonelygirl15, Emmalina, Geriatric1927 etc.), Terri Naomi is not only the most notable indie musician on the site but also among the most notable personalities on the site as well. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tho' I agree with Jaysweet's conclusion, I feel that the "my friend's an expert" test lacks objectivity. Ghits mainly chat and spam. Subject has one self-released disc, no sign of independent reviews or non-trivial articles, no sign of having toured nationally and thus not appearing to pass WP:MUSIC. Problem shared with most YouTube bands is per WP:RS, which she seems to fail also. Ohconfucius 03:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The subject has toured nationally according to her own website (linked in my vote statement) and the websites of various venues across the country that have hosted her; she has been featured on a major media outlet; she has an internet prescence that is comparable to other indie bands with established articles. The fact that her career has taken off on the Internet more so than any place else (though again, she has toured the US and into Canada) does not make her irrelevant, in fact, it makes Wikipedia perhaps the most valid place to report on her career. --AlexWCovington (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have promised Alex that I will take another look tomorrow afternoon -- please do not count my vote as final before then. The music scene is evolving right now, and I think that diminishes the value of the "signed to a label" test specified by WP:BAND. Ohconfucius seems to have actually done the research and come up with a delete conclusion, but I admit I haven't done it myself, and that my "ask a friend" test was a little lazy (in fairness, my buddy Pete really does know a crapload about the indie music scene, so it wasn't just like some random friend... but yeah, I should do the research myself). Anyway, I remain borderline. I will research again tomorrow, as per Alex's request, and may change my vote. We shall see. --Jaysweet 04:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment For the record, there is no "signed to a label" test -- one of the guidelines is two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels, but this is only one test. Bands meeting any criterion on WP:MUSIC are suitable for Wikipedia. --AlexWCovington (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • please guys (right?) don't be so brutal with the rules...

our Subject, i'm certain, has SOLD more CDs than American Idol season one runner up...justin guarini and HE was on one of the most MAJOR record companies ever...(also the doors first album was on a VERY small label...ɸɸɸ) so PLEASE don't be so brutal with "the rules" once upon a time in Germany it was "the rules" to kill jews... ya See, youtube is really new media (like wiki, like google) and will be a VERB before the end of next year... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.1.106 (talk • contribs)

        • Comment Ugh, Godwin's Law strikes again. Accusing people of acting like Nazis isn't likely to change any minds here... --Jaysweet 13:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment We need Verifiability outside of her website. Something to backup the claims made...more than one source is needed. I could make a website that looks just like her's and claim a lot of things that are not verifiable outside of the website. Thing is wikipedia needs proof, not truth or certainty. She fails both WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC...not to mention WP:BIO. The cnbc story was about not about her exclusively, which an article needs to be. The story has to be about her and only her which it isn't, making the mention trivial (like rolling stone mentioning a website name in passing in an article.) While I like a few of her songs, she doesn't pass the guidelines we set up for music/performers. The rules are the rules. Especially WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR...those are non-negotiable and can never be ignored. So far, much of this is not verifiable outside of her website.--Brian (How am I doing?) 16:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:MUSIC... Alex makes an interesting case for the subject meeting WP:MUSIC, but the best source for that comes from her own website (i.e. tour info) and personally I don't consider that a reliable source. Beyond that, Google hits are meaningless in my opinion; Olivia Tremor Control may have a similar number of Google hits, but they meet WP:MUSIC. All that said, I say weak because she is close to WP:MUSIC; somehow I suspect that in >= another year she will qualify under WP:MUSIC. I'm not an eventualist though and WP:NOT a crystal ball. This can always be recreated when she meets the guidelines.--Isotope23 17:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Terra Naomi has been on several national tours, including one opening for pop-star Tyler Hilton, in the summer of 2005. In addition the Wikipedia rules say that "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show." One of her songs has recently appeared on the soundtrack for the new Maggie Gyllenhall movie "Sherrybaby," which is available on Amazon and iTunes. Ezra 13 September 2006
Comment Indeed! [7]
Sherrybaby has its own WP article, so perhaps this is the WP:BAND criteria we are looking for? --Jaysweet 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hold up though. She performed the piece way before the movie, and it wasn't FOR the movie, it was just used. Many no-name performers have had their music used for TV or movies. I want to point out it's not a theme or title song either. so this is very very weak at best. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


&&&GOOGLE and YOUTUBE have changed the rules
i'm 47 with no hopes of becoming a rock star, but i've posted original songs on youtube (and so what)
AND i don't even LIKE TerraNaomi (only classic rock for me), but our rules are TOO static (sorry i mentioned germany)
RULES:
1. remember the people that got KILLED for translating the bible into ENGLISH
2. remember when it was against the LAW (da rules) to say "can't"......in the 14th century to not say "can not" was a crime
We have TIME to give this girl a little more time and space...(what is her DEADLINE for OUR purposes?)
this is my first defense against a Wikipedia deletion...
i followed the deletion arguements of the "Age disparity in sexual relationships" wikipedia article which was deleted and reinstated...
i'd love to keep wikipedia away from PR experts...but should we delete coke(tm) and pepsi(tm) articles and ANY other mention of a commercial enterprise....thanks for reading this far...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.1.106 (talk • contribs)
Comment How are your "people got killed for translating the Bible" arguments any less out-of-proportion than the Nazi analogies?!
The point you are missing is that Wikipedia is not some government democracy that you can vote for change. It's a private organization, and they make their own rules, using their own money combined with private donations. You can ask nicely for them to change their rules, but you have absolutely no right to demand it. After all, you are completely free to buy a web server and create your own website using the Wikimedia software...
Anyway, this petty anti-rule argument is moot. I would strongly encourage those who voted "delete" to please see the rationale for my changed vote at the top of this page. Ezra has brought information to our attention that Terra Naomi does satisfy WP:BAND. End of story, really... --Jaysweet 16:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed my arguement and it stands firm. It does not satisfy WP:BAND so this is not the end of the story. Also, the article is lacking VERIFIABLE information beyond this. No links, nothing to back up anything claimed here or on the website. Until that changes, I am a firm delete. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I think you are incorrect Brian. Here is verifiable information that the artist just barely satisifies WP:BAND as per:
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)
Granted, you can still argue that the article should be converted into a redirect, but that is only a suggestion. I respect your "delete" vote, but only if you are suggesting that a redirect be added to Sherrybaby. You can no longer truthfully assert that artist does not in anyway satisfy WP:BAND (unless you don't consider Amazon to be a reliable source, I suppose...)
(And P.S. in regards to the notability of Sherrybaby, it is not difficult to find multiple articles and review specifically about that movie, so I think there is little question of its notability.) --Jaysweet 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just edited the article to add an additional citation and reduce the POV and promotional aspect of it. I think it reads fairly neutral now. Artist does satisfy one criteria of WP:BAND (track appears on other notable media), and in addition has some inherent notability due to the unconventional path to success. Even a strict reading of WP:BAND turns this article into a redirect rather than a delete, and I think the latter point puts it over the edge to a keep-er. --Jaysweet 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and it might be added that that is one interpretation of Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)... personally I don't think having a track on a soundtrack really satisfies that because at that point the question now becomes "is the soundtrack notable in and of itself as a form of media". Besides, in my opinion that argues a redirect... I'd be more convinced if I saw a tour schedule from a source other than her own website. Still, it is largely a moot point because peering into my crystal ball I predict this will be kept at least on a "no consensus" and in one year's time she will likely meet WP:MUSIC solidly anyway.--Isotope23 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please do not put words in my mouth. I am not contesting the film's notability at all. I am contesting the fact that the artist has no verifiable notability beyond this. In light of that, yes, deleting the article and redirecting to the movie is fine. Not every artist that has a track featured on a movie sound track (moreso an indy movie like this where no-name artists are usually used) should have and article. There needs to be more claim-to-fame beyond a sound editor deciding that X artist's song sounds good to use for a 5-10 second clip for X part of a movie. The article was pegged for AfD because there are no verifiable claims of notability beyond the persona website and now having a track used in an indy movie (which frankly is laughable at best) Delete and redirect --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies -- until just this minute, I had somehow missed your earlier comment where you explained why you felt the WP:BAND criteria in question did not apply (i.e. that it was written previously and chosen for the movie, rather than written or commissioned for the movie). If I'd seen that, I would not have tried to put words in your mouth in attempting to guess your rationale. My bad! :)
Welp, we've both made our case. I continue to be on the fence, but I'm leaving my vote as a "keep" rather than change it a fourth time ;D We'll see how the consensus develops... Looks to be leaning towards "delete" anyway, eh? hehe... --Jaysweet 19:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually, I'm predicting "no consensus"...--Isotope23 20:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again -- you're probably right. There is a slight majority for "delete," but not enough to push it over the edge. Fine with me, since my own brain can't seem to establish a consensus with itself on this one ;D --Jaysweet 20:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

Basically this (sorry long) item places the justification on Terra Naomi being the currently pre-eminent example of an Indie musician exploiting a new "scene" via the medium of YouTube.

First I need to introduce myself by saying I have no connection with Terra Naomi save that I’ve contributed a lot to her message board in the past 2 months. I’ve also been (sort of) been delegated to assemble some points on why Terra Naomi entry merits retention by some members of the board. Note that I'm well aware these things can become personalised, so this is factual.

Of all the factors, the most important is her importance on YouTube. That the full future impact of YouTube and its ilk as major cultural channels has yet to be fully evaluated is undeniable, but the influence is clear to see. If, as I believe, YouTube and the like are considered to be influential and important, then Terra Naomi is undoubtedly the pre-eminent exemplar of Indie music on that medium. It can easily be argued that this qualifies under this condition :-

“Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.”

(local scene referring to the YouTube community of course).

The facts regarding Terra Naomi’s importance on YouTube are undeniable and verifiable. These include the following

for two months from the early July to early September, Terra Naomi was the most subscribed musical channel on YouTube. Only in the last week since major label involvement on behalf of two other artists has that position been supplanted on the all-time list.

one of Terra Naomi’s 32 videos (Say It’s Possible) has been viewed over 860,00 times alone. On YouTube alone, total views are in the region of two million.

Terra Naomi’s songs have inspired over fifty YouTube “covers” (I’ve lost count after that).

The following are key YouTube stats (as of 13th August 2006)

  1. 16 - Most Subscribed Channels (All Time)
  2. 3 - Most Subscribed Channels (All Time) - Musicians

Of lesser importance, but still worth noting are

Terra Naomi has a strong presence on MySpace, with 800,000 plays (verifiable) and over 21,000 “friends”. This is many more than some more established artists (for example, Katie Melua – the selling female artist in the UK last year has fewer than 8,000). Yes, these can be manipulated, but I’ve not heard of Terra Naomi “polling” anybody.

From stats I’ve assembled from Terra Naomi’s message board, she has an international presence unprecedented at this stage of a career – 53 countries represented in all continents (save Antartica). Evidence of an increasing globalisation through this new medium.

Terra Naomi has a track (Clean) on the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack for Maggie Gyllenhaal film, sherrybaby (released 5th September 2006)

Terra Naomi ha also released (independently) four CDs (ignoring promotions) including

Terra Naomi 2002 Terra Naomi EP Terra Naomi 8 Track Virtually CD

Terra Naomi has toured across the United States on her own, and as a support act to Tyler Hamilton.

I would also add that I have met Terra Naomi at two concerts she gave in London (The Borderline, 26th August 2006 and The Troubadour, 28th August 2006). These are verifiable as I have pictures on Flickr and there is a review of the Troubadour performance on YouTubeTalk. Those watching included two groups who flew in from Italy and one from Germany for the event.

Terra Naomi was in London for talks at the invitation of a record company – details are confidential, and I’m not party to them, but she was accompanied by representatives when I met her.

Steve Jones

  • Comment That's all very interesting... but none of that describes how she meets the current guidelines for this sort of article on Wikipedia (see WP:BAND).--Isotope23 19:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI included the condition that I think it qualifies under near the beginning. That is namely the importance in a "scene". Tying scenes into a narrow, regional or geographical boundary is artificial and not representative of the development of the Internet or social networks like YouTube and MySpace. SJ
  • Comment I think you have a hard sell considering MySpace or YouTube a "scene". There are hundreds upon hundreds of bands on those sites promoting their music. It's a useful tool to get your name out there, but calling the fact that a number of people download or listen to a particular artist or song on these websites a "scene" is a stretch. You are trying to interpret the meaning of WP:BAND in a novel way that is outside the bounds of how it was written. This is a discussion for the WP:BAND talkpage, not here.--Isotope23 20:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


a private person wrote: "How are your 'people got killed for translating the Bible' arguments any less out-of-proportion than the Nazi analogies?!" the anology is about RULES not reeligion...lol ...yes! Wikipedia HAS rules...and yes! thank god there's ROOM for opinions... ...after TODAY maybe Terra Naomi can be under a different category? forget about category: BANDS lets stick T.Naomi into category: "living people" or "American female singers?" american idol LOSER ... "EJay Day" has a Wikipedia article (EJay is currently a performer on the Royal Caribbean cruise ship Explorer of the Seas (Summer 2006)) american idol LOSER "Julia Megan DeMato" has a Wikipedia article (She was unable to secure a recording contract with an established company, but did record one song, "Let It Rain", with a company called Somme Music - an Internet storefront marketing that one song.)

So...what was the debate again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.1.106 (talk • contribs)

Another evil, genocidal rule for you to follow: Please sign all of your comments with four tildes, i.e. ~~~~. It makes the debate easier for others to follow. --Jaysweet 22:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and if you want to consider Ms. Naomi's inclusion as a person, the criteria is WP:BIO 69.113.1.106. I think a stronger case could be made for WP:BAND because Ms. Naomi isn't close to any of the WP:BIO guidelines.--Isotope23 01:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...(sorry i didn't sign in last time)... john lennon sang, "all i want is the TRUTH..." me too time will tell if ms.Naomi gets voted off Wiki Isle... but could someone tell me... should we... also vote off:

american idol LOSER ... "EJay Day" has a Wikipedia article (EJay is currently a performer on the Royal Caribbean cruise ship Explorer of the Seas (Summer 2006)) american idol LOSER "Julia Megan DeMato" has a Wikipedia article (She was unable to secure a recording contract with an established company, but did record one song, "Let It Rain", with a company called Somme Music - an Internet storefront marketing that one song.)

after TODAY maybe Terra Naomi can be under a different category? forget about category: BANDS lets stick T.Naomi into category: "living people" or "American female singers?" thanks for reading this far...godbless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Energyshelf (talk • contribs) 69.113.1.106 19:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC) singnature for the ABOVE...is: amidol loser[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/Terra_Naomi&oldid=1140245366"