Megan Nicole – Endorse, but relist on AfD. Endorse the original close, in that with the discussion that went on, delete was clearly the correct close, and the endorse consensus in this review reflects that. But, new references have surfaced, which may be sufficient to now meet WP:N. The right place to evaluate those references is AfD, so I'm going to restore the article and re-list it for a new discussion. – -- RoySmith(talk) 23:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comment One of those is transparently a press release, the other is, I believe, less transparently a press release. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm assuming here that you wish the article restored on the basis that these two links constitute reliable sources that would push Nicole past the WP:GNG. If that's the case, I'm forced to concur that both of them look like publicity rather than genuinely independent coverage. If your intention was not as I assume, can you please clarify what you are asking for? Lankiveil(speak to me) 13:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse by default, no new info presented, and the linked sources aren't even close to enough to change consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temp restored for discussion not that I think we'll change our mind, but so people can see it and realize why. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Sad to say that even with the number of YouTube subscribers Megan currently has, 2.5 million+, more than the subscriber tally for some of the fellow YTers she's worked with, Tiffany Alvord, Jason Chen, Dave Days and Alex Goot, to name a few, all of whom have Wikipedia articles with their respective notabilities established somehow, Megan has yet to meet the guidelines under WP:MUSICBIO. Unfortunately, YT subscriber counts are not a true measure of notabiity, and lack of substantial coverage in independent, third-party sources is keeping her out of Wikipedia. Not to mention, she has yet to have an album release from Bad Boy Records, and no word whether it will ever happen. I have read an AfD nomination discussion for one of the names I mentioned, Alvord, and how her coverage in third-party sources have allowed her to "have scraped past WP:GNG via interviews and mentions." My thought is Alvord still is struggling with the notability test (also noting her article in Wikipedia is relying heavily on primary sources), but not quite as much as Megan. I will say that I am a fan of Megan Nicole, and am even subscribed to her YT channel, but she will need greater exposure away from YT, and perhaps an album of original work, or other original work, which further defines who she is. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The subject has received coverage in at least four reliable sources:
The first two sources—one from Houston, Texas and the other from Singapore—provide significant coverage of the subject.
The third and fourth source provide additional coverage of the subject, though one may be problematic as noted by Joe Decker (talk·contribs). However, these are supplemental to the first and second source which are third-party reliable sources that do not read as press releases.
If this DRV discussion is closed as "allow recreation", please restore Talk:Megan Nicole. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quick notes on Cunard's sources--hat tip for the research. Chron: Reliable, signficant, interview. Straits Times: Reliable, signficant, interview. VibeVixen I'd have questions about "reliable", but I could replace that with *their* source, as it was apparently written from [3], and there is a precedent for considering AHH reliable, but a point-by-point comparison with this explicit press release leaves it off the table for me. I think the News Tribune article is fairly clearly PR-based.In short, I think the recreation question really turns on whether one takes the Chron and Straits Times interviews as independent. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stand by my previous decision to endorse the previous decision to delete, but with the latest that has been presented here, with two strong, reliable sources, I will back a re-creation if they stand up as enough for her to qualify under the notability guidelines, both general and as a musician. If not good enough to have her own article, I have made comment on the talk page (under the section name "Notability") that I'd back her being listed in the List of YouTube personalities, with those sources. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
