Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Alvord (3rd nomination)

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. I have my doubts about the sources linked in the debate, but no consensus either way. Secret ^account 04:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Alvord[edit]

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

I'm not convinced enough has changed since deleted in 2011 AfD, but am taking it to AfD rather than speedy in case I'm missing something significant Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NMUSIC. Sourcing is sketchy at best, mostly WP:PRIMARY, with insufficient WP:RS to establish notability. The article has been deleted twice before, and keeps getting recreated by aggressive spammers in violation of WP:PROMO. Could use a good salting.Qworty (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qworty. We never just delete for failing wp:nmusic. Are you suggesting it also fails gng?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly an "aggressive spammer" ; rather, I created the article after being satisfied that she met WP:NMUSIC. See the sources found in the first page of a Google News search [1]; for example [2] or [3] (just from the last few days). And what about the Billboard coverage [4] or her winning an ArtistSignal competition [5] or her appearing in a YouTube-based concert [6]? This is just the start; I have to dash right now, but am happy to continue the discussion later...the sources I cited are just the first ones that I saw...more to come later. Cheers, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Are you !voting keep?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article (re)creator, I'd rather not place a vote. —Theopolisme (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered wholly appropriate for the article (re)creator to !vote. Not a conflict of interest in the least.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, then... per my comments and those below. —Theopolisme (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please. Per Qworty's reasoning. Icarus of old (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many video views on YouTube and over million subscribers, but they are not reasons to keep. But she has also won ArtistSignal competition and Nivea competition[7]. Also tours in many countries[8]. --Stryn (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat surprised to see, that it is said, the article is failing in WP:NMUSIC - in what exactly? According Qworty in RS of the references chosen. There are 5 references of which 3 seems be just enough for notability (if 1st point of NMUSIC is considered) .. or could you justify the statement that their reliability (in WP:RS) is lacking? Is there whitelist or blacklist of reliable sources regarding music? (Moreover: In my opinion the NMUSIC criteria is good piece of thinking and work - there are possibly different criteria except multiple RS to justify notability of musician, yet 1000000 youtube (- or any other channel) subscribers is not one of them .. maybe this is input for debate and change - 1 000 000 of listeners make a quite a awareness .. that is quite a recognition of an artist!) --Reo ⁺ 20:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't really know what to make of Billboard's "Social / Streaming" chart but I suppose a chart is a chart. Seems to have scraped past WP:GNG via interviews and mentions. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely keep. Ms. Alvord is certainly both notable and well-known/famous. If the article has issues, then they can be addressed in the future, but it should not be deleted. See my link in the meta-wiki. I don't know what WP:NMUSIC is, but it's a good idea to avoid weird acronyms and tech jargon, so please speak in English. But deleting the article, which other people (including me) can improve, will definitely leave a bad taste in the mouth, and will make those who wish or can contribute unhappy. Always remember the Stone Soup parable. Shlomif (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply click through any blue link, if you are not familiar with the term or acronym. See WP:NMUSIC, which was blue-linked above. The same as you are inviting others to do, when you blue-link Stone Soup.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I guess it was "pot - meet kettle" (The pot calling the kettle black, where a disqualifier is guilty of the thing he disqualifies). OK, it seems that Ms. Alvord passes enough of the music notability guidelines and wikipedia people should understand that guidelines are just that - guidelines and that you always have to default on reason. For a fun way to understand it, see the this episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine titled "Body Parts", where Quark learns that the Rules of Acquisition were actually just the Guidelines of Acquisition. Shlomif (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was about to add the same as Epeefleche - I had to click on link and read info to understand fully your comment (and felt my time was wasted a bit). WP:NMUSIC is what anyone commenting here really needs to read, because that is what informs us over whether this meets notability guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... along with WP:GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources insufficient to sustain a BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2013 (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.