Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Black

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.98.227.182 (talk) at 03:04, 28 March 2011 (→‎Rebecca Black). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rebecca Black

Rebecca Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brief history: this article was speedy deleted under criterion A7, with claims that the subject is not notable because of WP:BLP1E. The article was then put on deletion review twice. The first time it remained deleted, but the second time recreation was allowed.

I'm nominating this article for deletion again because Rebecca Black is not notable when considered independently from her event [her music video]. The primary arguments for keeping the article are WP:MUSIC and the terms in WP:BLP1E that say the person involved with the event is notable if their part in the event was significant enough. While this is a reasonable argument considering she did sing the song and she has received quite a bit of news coverage, I believe there is a degree of separation between her and the video. Many of the articles covering Rebecca Black more often are focused on her video than just her. Though it is possible she may continue to release more songs and become notable in the future, we cannot predict what she will do andat the current point in time the video is what's notable, not her. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 15:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought, but I figured I'd list it there anyway in case anybody was curious. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 15:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep or redirect to Friday (Rebecca Black song). But in no way should it be deleted. Concerns of BLP1E are valid, but considering the amount of coverage she's had due to the avalanche of negativity, she passes the general notability guideline. If BLP1E trumps the GNG, then that's fine with me, but it should (very very obviously) be left as a redirect. Or the song should redirect here. Or both to an 'incident' article. But there should be something on the page. Ergo, no delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)<strike\> [reply]

  • Delete or redirect to Friday (Rebecca Black song). This does seem to be a BLP1E violation, but more importantly, at this point in time there is virtually nothing to be said about her outside of the context of song. This is unsurprising - she's thirteen. She hasn't really done anything beyond that which can be covered. When I compared Rebecca Black to the song article, this became clear: the only thing mentioned in the Rebecca Black article that was not also covered in the song article was the name of her father. Everything we know about her seems to be in the context of the song and video, rather than about her in her own right. Perhaps she'll go on to do other things. But at the moment, keeping the article just means duplicating the content in order to have an article which starts by describing a 13 year old as having produced the worst song ever, and which can say little more, if only because there is almost nothing more to be said. - Bilby (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to keep. The song has charted in the UK [1], which means she passes WP:MUSIC. Keep. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The argument presented that this is a "one event" situation is specious, this is not about a news event, it is a biography about an individual to be considered under MUSIC guidelines, which she surpasses. There are many "one hit wonders" in the world; that the video for this song has become an internet meme of sorts is irrelevant to the fact that it is a "hit" song by any reasonable definition of the same. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Notability is clearly established, and there is no valid reason for deletion presented. BLP1E is one of the most poorly interpreted provisions in all of Wikipedia. The original point of BLP1E was to discourage articles on people who were only incidentally caught up in news reports about events. One notable product (a song) or one notable job ≠ one event. I see absolutely no rational basis for stretching it to cover those who participate in or make creative works, which by their very nature (even on the internet) are lasting, and not an "event" in any reasonable sense of the word. It is not BLP1THINGOFANYKIND.

    "The love-hate fascination with Rebecca Black—the Ark Music Factory-pressed PlayDoh pop star [emphasis added] whose song “Friday” forces listeners to consider the ceaseless onward plodding of the days in more ways than one—is most likely making her wealthy, so there. Forbes, America’s foremost chroniclers of how much more money people make than you, estimates that Black’s 30 million-and-growing hits on her viral video has earned her some $20,000, thanks to revenue earned from the YouTube Partner Agreement...But that’s not all: Black’s viral fame—which extends to satirical covers by death metal bands, faux-Bob Dylans, and even Conan O’Brien—has resulted in several hundred thousand downloads of the song on iTunes directly into people’s ironic playlists, with Black earning $.70 for every single one." O'Neal, Sean (March 22, 2011), Your hatred of 'Friday' is making Rebecca Black rich, The A.V. Club, retrieved March 27, 2011.

    See also Hyden, Steven (March 18, 2011), Rebecca Black speaks!, The A.V. Club, retrieved March 27, 2011. "[The] much-discussed singer [emphasis added] and calendar enthusiast Rebecca Black finally granted her first interview Thursday to The Daily Beast...Rebecca Black’s media tour continued this morning on Good Morning America, which picked up on the cyberbullying storyline." Note also that the article is not titled "'Friday' singer speaks."

    Again, there is absolutely no basis for defining "event" to include the creation and distribution of a single notable work. And there is no policy-based (or other) reason for applying BLP1E to "protect" the privacy anyone who 1) purposefully distributed something to the public, and 2) purposefully engaged with national media on an ongoing basis. postdlf (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a brief comment, part of the role of BLP1E was to ensure that balanced articles can be written - the difficulty with someone known for one event is that we can only cover their biography in terms of that single event, rather than providing it with balance. By focusing on the event, rather than the person, we don't need to be so concerned with trying to give a NPOV account of their life, as our focus moves to a smaller part of it. In this case, there is nothing that is said about Black that isn't said in the Friday article, because we only know about her in relation to the song. Therefore we can't write a balanced article about her life, so it makes some sense to focus on the context that we can write about her. If things happen that mean we can write about her outside fo that context, then having two articles will make more sense. - Bilby (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "an event". And I count seven full sentences in the article that are about her, not the song per se. I don't think you are understanding NPOV correctly in this context, and the principle you are trying to assert would eliminate any article about someone notable for doing or making one thing of any kind, such as a debut novelist, debut film directors, even many one-term members of Congress who don't distinguish themselves beyond getting elected. Obviously what someone is notable for is going to dominate their article. Take Anna Paquin, for example; at the time she starred in The Piano, it was the only thing that she was notable for because it was her debut film role. So had Wikipedia existed in 1993, we should not have had an article about her, because everything would have focused on that Academy Award-winning role? If producing and releasing a single song that brings you fame is an "event", why wouldn't starring in one film that brings you fame? It simply isn't a constructive, workable, or meaningful standard. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is incredibly unlikely that the article will be deleted, and I was aware of this from the outset. But my point, I guess, is that those seven sentences you note in the article about her are also almost all in the article about the song. So from my perspective, currently we have an article about Rebecca Black, describing her only in terms of having recorded what some critics regard as the worst song ever (based on the lead), and we have an article about the song described as being what some critics regard as the worst song ever, performed by Rebecca Black. Both articles are predominatly about Rebecca Black and the song, and both articles cover the same material - although the song article actually provides better context than the article about her does. We can keep both, or keep only one. Either way the content would be kept. But one article focuses on the song (and yes, describing it as an event isn't quite right), putting the individual in the context of the song in much the same way as 1E encourages us to describe an event and place the indvidual within that context, while the other defines the person in the context of the song rather than giving a broader perspective, and this seems problematic when there is, at this point in time, no possibility of describing her in her own right.
At any rate I'll let it sit. I wanted to raise an alternative perspective given the way we have two articles covered the same material, but consensus will probably go elsewhere. :) - Bilby (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see the point in nominating an article about a singer for deletion immediately after she reaches the Billboard Hot 100 for the first time. [2] Having a single on a national music chart is supposed to establish a performer as notable per WP:MUSICBIO. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly something which should be noted for posterity if nothing else. A record of how these times worked. She's closing on 60 million views of the original video on Youtube, has been a guest on a ton of TV shows, the track is selling like mad, and she's donating the proceeds to help the victims of Japan. It has notoriety that a 13 year old girl coming out of nowhere and suddenly becoming known over most of the internet touched world. It should be recorded and documented regardless of whether or not she goes on to become a recording artist of chooses another way of life. If for no other reason than to give the future something to ponder. --IceHunter (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- sorry, but there isn't a shadow of a doubt on notability. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply when said person is working on a new single and album. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Rebecca Black and her song, Friday have created tremendous buzz around the music community. Ms. Black has appeared on NBC's 'Today' and garnered the attention of Simon Cowell, Lady GaGa, Conan OBrien, Ryan Seacrest, and radio personalities from accross the country. Ms. Black and Today have been 'trending topics' and Twitter and the video has received nearly 60,000,000 hits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.69.173 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- It seems to me that she is definitely notable at present, if the buzz dies down and she doesn't do anything else notable then perhaps it would be common sense to support deletion per WP:BLP1E.КĐ♥ 21:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - simply notable..for her hit music single and attention.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple sources establish notability per WP:GNG. The subject is not a low-profile individual, so passes WP:BLP1E. The subject also passes criteria nos. 1 & 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. Thus, the article should be kept. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- She she is definitely notable at present time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiadiva2k (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a merge or redirect will very possibly be proper after this has time to settle, but for now this should be kept (and certainly not deleted). Yaksar (let's chat) 23:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this song and Rebecca have gained tremendous popularity lately so I would keep this for the moment. It still certainly needs to be kept! JDOG555 (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well-known singer. ~EdGl! 00:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - Any notability is intrinsically related with the song. She seems more like a youtube sensation as opposed to a well-known musical act like some of those she's been compared to. Justin Beiber is known for being Justin Beiber. Rebecca Black is known for Friday - read; one song. By comparison, Tal Bachman is also only famous for one song. His article has about one sentence on that song. More than half of Rebecca Black's article is about Friday. I suggest deleting this article and taking any information over to Friday. Comics (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this star is 13 years of age and known for one song, not played on the radio but only on youtube. dont feed the cashcow that is her producer

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rebecca_Black&oldid=421085817"