Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Nicole (2nd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Nicole[edit]

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

This was deleted in an AfD, which was appealed to deletion review. The result of that discussion was to relist it, in order to evaluate the new references which came to light during the deletion review. My role in bringing this to AfD is purely administrative -- I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in two secondary reliable sources.
1. Piña, Kimberly (2011-08-16). "Katy teen breaks into music industry". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2014-07-15. Retrieved 2014-07-15.
2. Hadi, Eddino Abdul (2013-11-16). "YouTube pop princess goes unplugged". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2014-07-15. Retrieved 2014-07-15.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Megan Nicole to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO was mentioned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 8#Megan Nicole.
WP:MUSICBIO redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, which states:
A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.
[other criteria]
The Houston Chronicle article and The Straits Times article allow the subject to pass WP:MUSICBIO.
Cunard (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, though recommending Redirect to List of YouTube personalities if deleted. The two sources presented by Cunard demonstrate Megan's notability under the general guidelines, but I'm on the fence about as a musician. While having reliable, independent sources (and the two here are the best we've seen yet on Megan) is one criterion under WP:MUSICBIO, and those guidelines state that at least one of the criteria must be met, it also says “may be notable”. To me, at least one other criterion should be met, whether it be, among others: having a song on the Billboard Hot 100, Heatseekers or other songs-based charts; being at least nominated for a music-based award; or releasing an album on Bad Boy Records, the label she is signed to. I'd even be more convinced if any of her music was prominently showcased on television, and not just the Internet. But as of now, she still has yet to qualify under the more stringent WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. As for the two sources that have come to light: I deem them acceptable to at least include Megan in the List of YouTube personalities (will try to add her there now), with a redirect should her own article fail to stay on Wikipedia. The redirect request was mentioned in another AfD nomination, but apparently was not accepted due to lack of sources. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Nicole now added to the List of YouTube personalities, per the two sources identified by Cunard. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
those guidelines state that at least one of the criteria must be met, it also says “may be notable”. – the lead of Wikipedia:Notability states:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if all of the following are true:
* It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.
* It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.
Because Megan Nicole passes the general notability guideline, the only policy-based rationale for deletion is to argue that the article's mere existence violates a policy like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or core policies like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research, or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don't see any such policy violation here.
But as of now, she still has yet to qualify under the more stringent WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. – she meets the first point of WP:MUSICBIO. You have arbitrarily introduced your own requirement that it must meet a second criterion. That interpretation has no support in the guideline.
WP:MUSICBIO is not "more stringent" than WP:GNG. If meeting the first criterion in WP:MUSICBIO is not enough to establish notability, WP:MUSICBIO would say so. It does not.
Cunard (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I wrote my above comment, I was leaning toward a weak keep, but I still hold my reservations regarding her lack of public exposure outside of the Internet, as well as no solid hit on a national music chart, and no album. Perhaps one day she will be known in greater circles with those things, but as you point out, Cunard, meeting the first criterion under WP:MUSICBIO is sufficient to establish notability as a musician, and I will back with a keep, though just barely past weak keep. I'm also struggling with there being only two sources, but they are independent of one another, and independent of the subject. With further research, someone (perhaps one of us two) could find additional sources which will enhance what has already been established about Megan's notability through the two presented here. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She meets the WP:GNG without any need to consider WP:MUSICBIO as there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The VIBE Vixen is business as usual news of a label signing. But the Strait Times, Houston Chronicle, and News Tribune articles are all substantial and treat Nicole as the primary subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to have met GNG over time, frequently there are youtubers that get articles deleted early on but then come back as their popularity grows. E.g., look at article milestones at Talk:Ray William Johnson. This candidate made made the Billboard Social 50[1], which is a good indicator for notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:02, 21 July 2014 (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.