Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (4th nomination)

Jenna Rose

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose
• Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose Simon
• Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose Simon (2nd nomination)

Jenna Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I have nominated this article for deletion twice before. One debate resulted in delete, and the other resulted in keep. I am nominating it for a fourth time because I feel that enough time has passed to make it clear that this article meets all three criteria of a BLP1E, and should thus be deleted. A lot of the information in the article is only mentioned in local news, uncited, and cited with links that no longer work. This article has become a Pseudo-biography, and I feel that most of the information presented in the article is not encyclopedic. Rogerthat94 (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep it is incorrect that a musical artist with multiple sourcable projects is a BLPE. As estabalished at earlier AFD's this person with sourcable coverage for multiple aspects of her career meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ARTIST. With respects, the consensus established by AFD's #2 and #3 were the resyult of a lot of policy and guideline based discussion. I am hoping this repeated return to AFd by the same nominator is not a result of either WP:DONTLIKEIT or WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED. That links that worked two years ago may not all be available is a result of linkrot of sources once readily available and previously considered at AFD (and perhaps recoverable through diligent use of the Wayback machine... but loss through linkrot is not a valid rationale for deletion of something previously found notable. I remind the nominator that even with online sources evaporating, their hardcopy equivalents have not vanished from hardcopy archives, and notability is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree on the Pseudo-biography topic. Most of the sources and information about the artist is not really reliable, seams very fake and there is definitely the Conflict of Interests.Olderon (talk)
  • Your very first Wikipedia edits began this morning, March 9 2013, and are all involved with deletions.[1] With your being aneleven-lifetime-edits-ever editor, you're gonna have a real hard time time convincing experienced editors that the multiple reliable secondary sources used to cite the information in this article are in anyway fake or unreliable. Disagreeing with what WNYW or Newsday or Patch might report through their reputations for fact checking and accuracy is one thing, but calling these publications "unreliable" is ridiculous. I would invite you to study just how a source is determined as reliable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, it has enough sources to hsow it's notability, on the surface at least this is the fourth or fifth deletion attempt and somewhat WP:POINTy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: Obvious bias is obvious.

1. The nominator left notice on Talk pages pointing to the first deletion nomination, not this one. That's a pretty wrong way to treat editors, given that the nom knew it was the 4th nomination, and the nom's 3rd, as the nom carefully explained at the top.

• I had attempted to use the template {{subst:Afd-notice|ARTICLE NAME}} which was recommended here. I apologize for doing so incorrectly. I did not intentionally try to mislead anyone and all of my actions have been conducted in good faith. Rogerthat94 (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

2 The result of the 2nd deletion nomination was No Consensus. Rogerthat94 then rushed the 3rd nomination, just 20 days after the 2nd closed. The result of the 3rd deletion nomination was Keep, and that was endorsed upon review. All the keep reasons then are valid now, and the nominator's problem with Swerdlow personally, rather than article's merits, are to me, obvious.

3. I am, in this numbered item, about to question the nominator's motives. Look away if you don't like to see such things. Rogerthat94's persistence in trying to delete this BLP about this person seems obsessive. I want to know if this editor has a conflict of interest - that is, an interest in supporting any young female performers who aren't Jenna Rose Swerdlow? Does this editor have any contact with or beef with Swerdlow? Is this editor one of the swarming anti-Swerdlow "haters", given the claim of being "a student", with a (presumed) birthyear of '94 (age 16-17 in 2011)? Note that the contributions history started with 17 innocuous edits, then on 18 May 2011 became singularly focused on deleting this article. Why the sudden interest where there had been none before, student? In June 2011, Rogerthat94's user page was amended to self-declare as a deletionist, stating clearly that some articles "have no place on Wikipedia" - was that only a reference to Swerdlow at that point, and was self-declaring merely cover to mask singling out Swerdlow? Since then, those remarks have been deleted, but not retracted, or explained in edit summary. My point is, if there is any such conflict of interest, or obsessive agenda, about Swerdlow, Rogerthat94 should simply and honestly declare it and retract this nomination. It's obvious that nobody else currently cares to nominate this article - especially after a keep & endorse - only Rogerthat94. This is a low-edit-count editor (387 after 6 years, nothing wrong with that) with over 63 edits (16%) related to Swerdlow. That's a very high degree of interest in deleting this article, IMHO.

4. I agree with MichaelQSchmidt's rebuttal citation of policy, guideline, and essay, and that notability is not temporary, due to the persistence of offline verifiability, even if online verification has rotted, as it often does. BLP1E doesn't apply, for two reasons: multiple Swerdlow videos were released with similar "hater" popular response, and her videos are part of an larger ongoing news-mentioned trend of remarkable audience responses to mundane videos by kids. Coverage of her has occurred over multiple years. BTW part of that remarkable response was the rampant destruction/vandalism by hackers (script kiddies?) of most of her official online presence, which did hit the press. --Lexein (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment These personal attacks are untrue. Nothing other than the "My Jeans" song was reported in any sources that would be considered reliable enough to demonstrate notability outside of that single event. Just because she's released additional videos and gotten some additional blog coverage does not demonstrate notability beyond BLP1E, unless this coverage meets the proper guidelines. None of the sources reporting her later works that I found have met these guidelines. I wasn't using linkrot as my primary reason for deletion, it was merely something I was noting to show that a lot of information in this article probably can't be verified. The reason for deletion is because she only received significant coverage for the "My Jeans" song, which makes this a BLP1E. Rogerthat94 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If she were sourcable for having done only one thing ever, then your repeated AFDs and repeated cries of BLP1E might have credibility rather than appearing more simply of WP:IDONTLIKEHER . There is no demand or requirement that anyone found suitably notable through prior discussion and consensus "must" continue to remain in the headlines, and not every verifiable activity in her life needs to make headlines. Again... WP:NTEMP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The lack of any coverage in the year and a half since the last consensus speaks to how sensational the coverage was. Rogerthat94 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)