Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (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 keep. This is a popular article – before the first version was deleted it was attracting over 2K hits a day – [1]. Such popularity, however, is not part of our inclusion criteria. Indeed, we are wary of internet memes, and some commentators in this discussion have felt that this subject is simply a flash in the pan. The sources in the article are not top drawer – most in the article are local newspapers, and one is a blog, others I have found are online teen magazines; however, the blog is notable, and the sources are reliable (they have editorial control) and are of a significant number. The coverage in the sources is not top class, but is not trivial, and does indicate an awareness among the target audience of a knowledge of the topic. That is, she is written about in reliable sources as a notable person. I paid attention to concerns about BLP issues, however the article is soberly and carefully written, firmly sourced, and avoids any dubious scandal. On a number count, the delete !votes are slightly higher than the keep !votes, though a number of the keeps are better argued, while some delete votes don’t fully support their “not notable” assertions, or are hesitant – suggesting that the article can be reinstated later. The subject is likely to be of passing interest; however, the commentary on the subject will be a lasting record, and it is that commentary that we are collecting and summarising here on Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

I had submitted this article the first time it went to AfD and it was deleted because the subject fails to meet the notability criteria for a Biography of a Living Person.

The article has since been recreated, with much of the same information, even though nothing else has been published about the subject. The article went to AfD again, but no consensus was reached.

I am submitting it again, because no effort has been made to cite any information in the article, and no more sources on the subject exist. Much of the information is unverifiable through any secondary published sources, and the article's creator even admitted to be associated with the subject.

Unless someone can site all of the information in the article with secondary published sources, rewrite it so it does not sound like an advertisement, and prove that the subject meets the notability guidelines, I feel the article should be deleted until the subject does meet the guidelines. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

To User:Rogerthat94: What you may have overlooked, is that notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation in an article. I politely urge you to withdraw this 3-week-later premature-renomination as being too soon. lack of immediate effort is not a sound deletion reason, nor is a reason to force cleanup of an article determined by others as improvable over time and through normal editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• I understand that there are sources, but they don't give enough information to write an entire article. Perhaps redirecting this page to Rebecca Black - Friday and adding a section on Jenna Rose there would be an appropriate compromise, since most of the coverage seems to be piggybacked off of that. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Shall we also merge William Shatner with Captain Kirk as Kirk is where Shantner has most of his notability? No... because there is information about Shatner and his work that has no place in an article about Kirk. Just so here: there is sourcable information about Jenna Rose that has no place in an article about one of Rebecca Black's works. What does make sense is a wikilink in the Rebecca Black article that leads back to the Jenna Rose article where readers can then learn more about Rose. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rebecca Black, Captain Kirk, and William Shatner all fit under the notability guidelines, but I feel that Jenna Rose does not. There is some citeable information, but all of the information from reputable publications is only on the Jeans song, which isn't enough coverage to create an entirely separate article, but would fit in with the article about Friday. The notability guidelines have more criteria than just "is the subject of published sources" for a reason. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes... have you read the criteria at WP:ARTIST? The notability SNGs are intended to work in concert with WP:GNG, not in disaharmony, and Jenna Rose DOES meet our inclusion criteria. The point missed that I was trying to clarify is that sourcable biographical information about Jenna Rose and her carrer has no place in some different article about some different topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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

• Keep and Close AFD as being too soon after the no-consensus keep of last AFD just THREE WEEKS AGO. The better option if one disagrees with an AFD outcome is to wait a reasonable length of time before renominating (and pardon, but I do not think 3 weeks is a long enough period to be considered reasonable), or taking it to DRV if an editor feels there was a flaw in the earlier close per consessus. We can revisit this in a few months... not a few days or a few weeks. With respects, the nominator's reasoning seems to be A) there has not been enough effort since last keep, and B) an apparent wish to use this third AFD in order to force the cleanup that was the seen as possible at the last AFD. And NOTE: Toward WP:NRVE and WP:GNG, we DO have some quite decent reliable independent secondary sources available toward this person and her work: Herald Newsday 1 Newsday 2 Newsday 3 Newsday 4Patch 1 Patch 2 Patch 3 Leisure and Sports Review We are to respect consensus and understand that addressable issues are reasons to address the issue proactively and not valid reasons to renominate for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• I did not take this to deletion review because there wasn't a flaw with the last debate. There wasn't a consensus so the debate was closed and there was a consensus to delete the article in the first debate. I don't expect the article to be perfected in three weeks, but the fact is nothing is cited and no effort has been made to make it sound less like an advertisement. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Your rationale seems to be that while the AFd three weeks ago did not result in the deletion you wished or work to improve the article, and even with your stating you did not expect perfection in three weeks, it should still be deleted per WP:NOEFFORT. The addressable issues such as tone and sourcing not being addressed would seem a far better reason to be proactive and address them, rather than send to AFD because no one else had done it in 20 days. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• My main concerns are Wikipedia:Notability and a lack of citeable information, as I have described above. Lack of effort is not a main reason for deleting the article. I understand that things take time to improve, but an article can't improve without enough coverage of the subject. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Having myself actually read through the many available sources, I have to strongly disagree. There is PLENTY available with which to improve the article. Please read WP:NRVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Sources were already found like the one I found last time [2]. Its too soon to have this back at AFD. Also, sources exist, then they don't have to be in the article. You want them there, then do it yourself, don't waste out time here again. Dream Focus 02:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Most of the information in the article is unverifiable. I have searched for sources to verify the information, but, aside from some trivial information surrounding her "Jeans" song, none exist. Also, there's no reason to be so hostile. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• With respects, your google-foo seems to be broken. The multiple sources I offered are not "trivial mentions" in that they address the subject and her works directly and in detail, having the subject meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• There isn't enough information in those sources to write an entire article. That's why I suggested the redirect to Rebecca Black's song. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry. I've actually read through the many available sources, and have to strongly disagree. There is LOTS available with which to improve the article. Please pardon me I do not respond further to your own arguments, but it's always better to fix the problem than it is to throw out something that can benefit the project with just a little work Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: This nomination is super lame. Don't renominate so soon after a no consensus close unless you have a better rationale. Best to wait a few months, as no harm is really being caused by waiting a more reasonable period of time to see if a consensus will develop on a subsequent AfD. If the nominator wants to improve wikipedia per his profession on his user page, there are 8 million better possible uses of his time. Check out Category:BLP articles lacking sources and get to work.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• There is harm. Allowing articles that are not referenced, such as this one, to be posted here hurts the reliability of Wikipedia. In addition, it sets up the possibility for slanderous information to be posted, especially in the case of a biography of a living person. I understand that this articles creator personally knows the subject and nothing about this article seems slanderous, but the notability guidelines are very strict for a reason. I understand you don't agree with me, but please try to be civil about it. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• The solution is to be a proactive editor and correct a perceived problem. It's never helpful to demand deletion simply because someone else had not the work that one could easily do oneself. And a worry of what someone might or might not do to this or any article in the future is also not a reason to delete. Containing sources never prevents malicious edits or vandalism... prevention is through editors watching articles for such and correcting them IF they occur. We do not delete an article because it "might" be edited maliciously in the future. The best answer to WP:NOEFFORT is WP:SOFIXIT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting deletion because nobody has taken the time to add information from published woks to the article. I'm suggesting deletion because there isn't enough information in published works to create an article. If there was enough significant coverage to write and article, I would contribute, but all of the publications are just the same information about the "Jeans" song, which isn't enough information to write a whole article. I used the vandalism example only as an example of why keeping uncited information is harmful.

I agree with you that there is some good information on the subject from some extremely reputable published secondary sources, but it isn't enough information to write an entirely separate article. That's why redirecting to Rebecca Black - Friday seems like the best solution. In the future, if more information is published on the subject or she falls under a second notability criteria, I would agree that a separate article would be appropriate. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rogertthat24, get to work, there are 50,000 BLPs that need sourcing more than this one single article, despite your fetish about it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The listed (though not inline cited) sources do have sufficient content which some rewriting can address quite handily. At this point, more sources would be helpful, but the extant ones are completely satisfactory. Deletion is not the solution to a need for moving sources from general to inline. This repeated, and in my opinion, badgering nomination is premature, and, given the prior non-consensus at 2nd, is unseemly. The nominator is continuing to argue and gainsay every single comment (very much not expected or usual nominator practice) - methinks the nominator doth protest too much. Going forward, I suggest picking up a contributing editor's eyeshade and improving the article or putting down the stick and walking away. All the effort wasted on striving for deletion could have been spent on actual improvements. There is no consensus forming for deletion. Please see that. --Lexein (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Complete agreement. The available sources offer a wealth of information with which to improve this BLP. I rarely make a "keep" statement without also editing an article to address perceived issues, and though involved in addressing other articles during this AFD, I have just neutralized the article's tone and added additional sources to the references section in preparation for more work.[3] The nominator's telling me on my talk page that WP:N is "only a guideline" as if it could be ignored when considering if something is worthy of inclusion, and his repeated and well intended protestations aside, my next step in recommended regular editing will be to use the multiple available significant sources as inline citations. Shall we look to see if the pond has fish? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I completely agree with the badgering observations. Sorry about the comments getting out of hand. Thank you User:MichaelQSchmidt for adding those citations. I have added some citation needed tags, and if someone would be willing to find sources for those, that would make a really good argument for keeping this article.

I understand there isn't a consensus, but this whole discussion is just people repeating "There are articles on her." If you actually read Wikipedia:MUSIC past the first bullet point, it's fairly clear that the subject falls far short of the guidelines. I never said WP:N could be ignored, I called it a guideline, because that's what it is. It goes past "Is the subject of published works" because each case is different. As it was mentioned in the first discussion, most of the articles posted on her were a result of Rebecca Black's song.

It is debatable whether or not Patch meets Wikipedia's criteria or not, because it's basically a local-scale Huffington Post [4]. In addition, that section doesn't seem like a good measure of notability because of the amount of individuals published there. There are, however, some articles from highly notable sources published on her right after Rebecca Black's song, so again, redirection seems like a fair resolution. It is nice for a girl and her family to have a place to promote herself, but that's not Wikipedia's purpose. In responding to this, think about which solution would help keep content on Wikipedia both encyclopedic and relevant. There are a lot of people that would be interested in seeing mention of "My Jeans," but Jenna Rose really hasn't done anything else notable.

Bottom Line - We could redirect this article to Rebecca Black - Friday, and include only the information from highly notable sources, that there would be an interest in. Or, we could keep this article and have to keep some uncited information and some information from Patch, despite the subject having done nothing else notable. Rogerthat94 (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Your "bottom line" has been dealt with before: A redirect to a nonrelated article does not improve the encyclopedia nor aid a reader's understanding of the specific topic being discussed. And just what is your fascination with Rebecca Black? While you are always welcome to expand and source her article, it is illogical to suggest something that would degrade her article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That no one agrees with your premature renomination does not mean there is no consesnsus... quite the opposite. And when a number of editors state that multiple independent secondary sources speaking directly toward the artist and her work have her meet notability criteria, THAT is how consensus is created, per guideline and policy. Your not agreeing with other's interpretation of guideline and policy do not make them incorrect in their evaluations of sources or guideline. Please... read WP:CONSENSUS to better undertstand just what it is and how it is created. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And toward WP:MUSICBIO of which you tried to mis-instruct me on my talk page,[5] you are misinterpreting it to be exclusionary, and it is not. You indicate that editors haveto consider inapplicable "bullet" sub-points, when that section itself instructs that they need not do so. The bulleted section to which you refer specifically begins "A musician or ensemble... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:". It does not say all. It does not say some. It simply states "at least one". In a nutshell, if even one "bullet point" is applicable, editors need not consider others that may not apply. If she missed on the first or third or last, then editors may check the others to see if one of them might be met. Meeting more than one is NOT required. AND, most cogently, the VERY first bullet, the one she meets, follows the GNG in it stating "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." As the sources available for the Jenna Rose article are multiple, non-trivial, published, secondary, and independent, MUSICBIO bullet one shows her as notable enough for Wikipedia. And if MUSICBIO bullet one is met, there is no requirement that bullets two through seven need also be. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Patch.org is a legitimate local news umbrella organization, see [6]. For the life of me I can't figure out why you care so much about this article, except that people born in 1994 probably care much more (one way or the other) about Jenna Rose than those born a bit earlier!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The level of citation is far improved since its first AfD nomination.--Labattblueboy (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I did not intentionally mislead anybody or misrepresent anything. I understand that she meets the basic criteria, but because most of the coverage was sensationalized and there was already a consensus to delete this article, I feel it's important to note that none of the other WP:MUSIC criteria have been met. Patch.com is not an illegitimate source, but it's not nearly as reputable as some of the organizations that published the articles published on the "Jeans" song, which was sensationalized by the Rebecca Black song. I have not suggested the redirect for personal reasons or to degrade either Rebecca Black or Jenna Rose, but rather because I feel, until Jenna Rose establishes more notability, an article on her doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. Her "Jeans" song's popularity is a direct result of Rebecca Black - Friday, so I feel a section on her, that this page would redirect to, would have a perfect place there.

I understand that every other position in this discussion has been to keep the article, but everybody is just giving the same exact reason. Removing articles about minor sensational and unnotable subjects not only prevents unverifiable and useless information from being posted, but it is a deterrent to people posting articles that advertise for subjects they have personal relations to. I hope to get some of the participants from the previous two discussions, who did make comments about how sensational the coverage was to participate before this discussion is closed.

Is a little girl's performances in local theater productions and talent competitions or slowly-growing musical "career" really notable enough for Wikipedia? No. Is there some information about her "Jeans" song that really does have a place here? Yes, but it would be better served in Rebecca Black - Friday. If she does something truly notable, by all means create an article on her. But at this current time, I just don't feel like a separate article on her is appropriate. Perhaps an editor would like to keep a userfied version of the current article, to create an article on her in the future, if she does something notable. Rogerthat94 (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm glad that you grant she meets the basic inclusion criteria. A new issue is your denigrating her beginnings, as almost without exception, every entertainer extant had beginnings in non-notable productions, and in a properly balanced and comprehensive BLP, those beginnings are expected to be written of and sourced. While those beginnings do not need assert the notability, their inclusion benefits a reader's understanding of the subject. We do not judge an entertainer's notability based upon "only" their non-notable beginnings. We look beyond the biographical background and instead at the multiple and sourcable projects that bring them coverage of the notability assertions that meet the "basic criteria".
• AND, to repeat again, A redirect to a nonrelated article does not improve the encyclopedia nor aid a reader's understanding of the specific topic being discussed. Rebecca and Jenna might one day inhabit a category "Viral video stars", as placing them together in a category under that context might make sense due to the wide media comparisons. But being categorized similarly does not mean it makes sense to place her information in an article about someone else.
• As this AFD was begun only 20 days after the 2nd was closed, I would not be opposed to the closer's consideration Incubation for a short while, as it would be in a nonwiki'd location out of article space, and in the place that encourages collaborative efforts in improving the article. Userfication generally does not get the hoped for input and assitance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Every artist has their beginnings, but separate articles on them aren't created until they do something notable. Jenna Rose has not reached this point yet. If she does in the future, of course include information about her beginnings in non-notable productions. At there current time though, a separate article on her is not appropriate. I agree with your incubation suggestion. That way, we can bring this article back to the mainspace if she clearly meets the notability criteria in the future. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's going to snow - I get it. I'm not a fan of this article. This particular "flash in the pan" was more of a dim glow somewhere beside the pan. The coverage has a strong hometown news tilt and the "semi-viral" bit is almost painful to read. Yeah, it's recentism. Sit on it for a year or so. Work on toning up our notability requirements to clearly reject such "local-kid-gets-mocked-a-little-bit-online" notability. After that, renominate and I'll !vote to kill it twice to make sure it's dead. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• I edited my comment above, to prevent the comments from further getting out of hand. Bottom Line: I completely see where you're coming from, but I feel like it's a better idea to redirect this article now and recreate it if the subject becomes notable in the future. It just seems too much like an advertisement to me, even with the revisions and citations. Rogerthat94 (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and LOL Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (2nd nomination), is the nominator has problem with this person or what? Ald™ ¬_¬™ 16:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oh for goodness sake - leave it be for a couple of months and then nominate it again, at which point it will be clear there isn't any reliable continuing coverage; it's fairly clear there isn't anything you can do against the Crap Article Rescue Squadron in this case. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

  I think we all know what will happen again in a few months time if it is nominated, a certain fun-lovin bloc of users will scream bloody murder about "OMG REPEATED NOMINATIONS!!!"

  You reckon? Blimey, talk about assuming bad faith ... oh ... wait Black Kite (t) (c) 23:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

  And is calling six respected admins and 383 contributing editors, whose goal is to improve weak articles in order to improve the project, the "Crap Article Rescue Squadron" to be considered a proper example of an "assumption of good faith"??? Pardon, but ouch! While some very few of the 389 might be editors of which you disapprove, the vast majority of that 389 improve weak articles and improve the project through their efforts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  As you well know, I have no problem with the ARS when they are used properly - indeed I regard them as a force for good at that point - as opposed to a collection of bloc voting for crap articles, like this. I have this problem, you see, it's called saying exactly what I think as opposed to a large number of users who say exactly what they think other users want to hear. Black Kite (t) (c)

  As MQS said, referring to the "Crap Article Rescue Squadron" in the same line of conversation as your complaint about assuming bad faith = WP:POTKETTLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  See above comment. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  While I chuckle at your unfortunate use of hyperbole, and thus avoid feeling insulted by the insinuation, could you share where 339 editors have block-voted here? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Trivial, flash-in-the-pan homebrew starlet gets a little bit of "here's another one" overcharge in the wake of the Rebecca Black meme. Editors fundamentally misinterpret the "presumed" aspect of WP:GNG. I am Jack's Complete Lack of Surprise. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per wp:BLP1E] she was a flash-in-the-pan. Lets not make this any worse then it has to be. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry, and while respecting your having the opinion of removing this topic from article space, BLPIE does not apply as she has coverage for multiple items. Such a miaapplication is akin to requesting the removal any artist known "only" for being a musical artist (and THAT list would be unseemly long). Multiple released songs receiving coverage in multiple sources does not equate to being BLP1E.
• Futile Delete !vote - The hometown news coverage of this not-quite viral would-be Rebecca Black convinces me that she attracted a little bit of attention in her local area for a brief period of time. I've seen non-notable school-teacher-of-the-year-good-Samaritan-neighborhood-mom types with similar coverage. Not notable at present. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Sufficient sources exist to indicate it meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, and Delete in case it wasn't clear earlier. Never have I seen such a tawdry collection of sources cobbled together and claimed to meet GNG. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Never? Are you currently suffering from amnesia?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have small children and I'm aged over 35. I'm allowed the occasional failure of long-term memory. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe its a coping mechanism. Having a 2nd child requires you to forget the sleeplessness of the 1st in most cases :-) --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem comes with the 3rd that wakes the other two up at random. At that point you'll agree with anything, even if it's "You'd really like to come to our party tomorrow, we're making authentic Kazakhstani food". Black Kite (t) (c) 23:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BLP1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Incubate change of vote at suggestion of MichaelQSchmidt (on my talk page) for compromise. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry, and while respecting your thoughts toward removing this topic from article space, BLPIE does not apply as she has coverage for multiple items. Such a miaapplication is akin to requesting the removal any artist known "only" for being a musical artist (and THAT list would be unseemly long). Multiple released songs receiving coverage in multiple sources does not equate to being BLP1E. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable - YET. Reinstate when she's more notable, like beyond New York State. She has admitted on youtube that she has not performed outside of the metropolitan NY area. 207.237.248.85 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, no prejustice against recreation if in the future she meets notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable; closest she ever came to the requisite substantial coverage was for her little bitty BLP1E adventure.--Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not sure if this vote is really policy based or not, but I think we should have a higher standard of inclusion for minors who are known only for dubious accomplishments than we would typically apply in one of these debates. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: Misogyny such as "flash-in-the-pan homebrew starlet" and subjective judgments of whether the subject's contributions to the human race are worthwhile are beside the point. Most everything that "notable" humans have done is useless, but they are notable due to the fact that other humans took notice of them. In 1829, some joker liked to jump off things, and died when he jumped when drunk; he is remembered forever. In 1864, another joker carried around a sack of flour for months after a dumb bet, got so ill from it that he eventually died, and is also remembered forever. Jenna Rose has received attention because she sang a silly song about jeans. Subject meets WP:N (albeit not with flying colors), so there is no reason to delete.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • • • I have agreed with "keep", but damnit, Milowent, neither Reuel Colt Gridley nor Sam Patch seem to have died for the reasons you describe. Not good, misrepresenting such details in an earnest discussion of article merits. Through clenched teeth, Lexein (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please explain how you feel she meets WP:N. (The personal attack, "Misogyny", is both unacceptable and inexplicable.) - SummerPhD (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just basic crossing-the WP:GNG line. "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". If she wasn't famous for such a frivolous reason, we probably wouldn't have this AFD.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So since you failed to respond when called out for the accusation of misogyny, can we assume that was just a bit of trolling? As for WP:GNG, you do recall what that 2nd "g" stands for, right? That means that we can set it aside if need be to maintain a bit of sanity around here. Sanity is what would carry the day here if, just once, the ARS cronies could stop bean-counting how many reliable sources one finds and could start evaluating just why an encyclopedia needs an article on a minor who is being talked about by adults for being a bad singer. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That was calling me out? I though it was calling you out, but I know you pride yourself on your snarky comments like "flash-in-the-pan homebrew starlet". I often chuckle at your snark myself, even when you are saying that articles should "die in a fire" and are saying awful things about ARS. But this isn't about "ARS cronies", its about subjective evaluations that Jenna Rose is not worthy of having an article despite meeting GNG. COI editors have already made clear that she wants the article, so the paternalistic concerns are apparently not of concern to her. Ultimately, Jenna Rose is not especially notable, but I think she's sufficiently notable to keep, and I see no benefit from deletion. You disagree here. In some cases you agree with me to keep (which is phenomenal because you rarely !vote to keep anything), and in some cases I don't oppose deletion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - those comparisons seem like a bit of a stretch. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is that, subjectively, why should Sam Patch have an article? Or Mary Toft? They were Jenna Roses in their day. The beauty of Wikipedia is the beauty of Herodotus, we can have such articles and they don't interfere with our in-depth serious articles. We can have such articles and they add detail to the largest compendium of human knowledge ever assembled. When we remove some of that knowledge, we should ask why its a good idea. Are you better off if all knowledge of Sam Patch is obliterated?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sam Patch has something that Jenna Rose does not... (though it seems like lots of Jenna's have arisen, at least in romance novels.) Drmies (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. As much as I'd like to hang with MQS and Milowent, I can't. Not notable, meager references, an inflated article. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Brutus. :-)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, Milowent, with friends like me... Drmies (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Per coverage in Newsday (4 references in article) & LI Herald source in article. Ongoing news coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep based on the coverage. Despite the young age of the subject, I don't think it is a question of BLP. The basic test of whether our article can do any harm is not met--given that she and her family are apparently foolish enough to want to create further attention to her, as shown by her continuing after the first video. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - although it can certainly be created if more notability is gained. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete References are near exclusively local, and fail to demonstrate notability in a wide sense. Mark Arsten has a point. Can we not exercise just a little bit of discretion in cases where a non-notable pre-teen girl makes an arse of herself and has to live with a WP article on it for the rest of her life? To the extent that the GNG is met, and it would only be barely met, we must remember that the GNG only creates a presumption of notability. That presumption should be set aside in the circumstances.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  But it would seem to me that the presemption has not been rebutted, and opinions toward presumption seem to be that such presumption can simply be ignored if one chooses to not accept it nor actually rebut it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  Whether or not the presumption has been "rebutted" is your opinion. In any case, I never said it had been rebutted, only that it should be set aside. Which are two different things. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Before we get too paternalistic as a justification for deletion, keep in mind that someone associated with the subject has indicated she approves of having an article. She has also received international coverage, but the local news sources are the most thorough.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Is it really fair to use what a COI unregistered user says in you argument? While I agree that the article's creator probably did create this, as he/she said, to promote the subject, anybody could claim this. David Goodman made the best point, but she seems to have stopped after the third song. The international article is really piggybacked off of Rebecca Black. It, as well as the Newsday source, also existed when the delete consensus was reached the first time. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, is it really fair to rely on anything you say considering your peculiar dislike of Jenna Rose to the exclusion of the other 3,750,000 articles on wikipedia? Every edit you've done in the past few months is about Jenna Rose. Jenna Rose has been in the news just this month due to her new release.[7].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Normally I'd ignore a comment like this, but my integrity is being questioned and I don't appreciate it. Milowent's claim about my contribution history is untrue. I have no dislike of Jenna Rose, I just feel this article should be deleted per Wikipedia policy. What about her new song is notable enough for Wikipedia? There are plenty of non-notable artists being covered in local papers. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rogerthat94 Sorry, since you first nom'd Jenna Rose 18 May 2011, you've made 182 edits as a registered user, and 76 of them have involved Jenna Rose. Since this last nom 7 Oct 2011 until this moment, you've made 66 edits, 54 of which have involved Jenna Rose, or 82%. That's rather a lot about a single issue.
• Milowent - let's accumulate those international sources, please, in a new section here in Talk at Talk:Jenna Rose. --Lexein (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Lexein, I would be happy to compile the international reporting, but as this AfD has been open 10 days and its an obvious 'no consensus' situation (despite subjective distate for the subject), hopefully an admin can close this first.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(amended above) Let's accumulate them at Talk:Jenna Rose then. --Lexein (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't claim to be an active editor, and you can definitely manipulate the numbers against me, but my point is that it's unfair to say "Every edit you've done in the past few months is about Jenna Rose." I try to improve articles whenever I see problems. Either way, this argument doesn't belong in this discussion. Continue it on my talk page if you have to. I shouldn't have even responded to the attack in the first place. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm A) my point was, sadly, missed. B) I'm not at all fond of extending discussions to multiple locations. --Lexein (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: A couple of suggestions for improvements to the article, if it's kept (and as much as I disagree with it, that seems to be the way the wind is blowing): Stuartyeates (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(a) the Filmography table needs to do a better job of conveying the extent of coverage and the relative notability of the work;

(b) the Singles table needs to include more information (views / likes / whatever);

(c) more categories need to be added;

(d) the career section should be called performance or something since career (according to the OED) relates to professional life or employment which doesn't doesn't seem to apply here (I'm not seeing an assertion that she's doing this professionally);

(e) if the page is called Jenna Rose then the subject should not be called Swerdlow throughout the article, that's just plain confusing.

• I've copied this to Talk:Jenna Rose and replied there. --Lexein (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Borderline advertisement + all references in the same time zone + recentism = non-notable. →Στc. 06:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  Pardon, but as tone was addressable through regular editing, it's no more an "advertisement" than any other article informing a reader about a topic. Had the "local" coverage only been to some backwater small town, a case for coverage being "limited" might have been reasonable, but initial coverage was in a newspaper with the 11th-highest circulation in the United States, and the highest among suburban newspapers... so not exactly a neighborhood gazette... and as initial coverage began in Long Island (which with a population of 7.5 million, is the most populated island in any U.S. state or territory and also the 17th most populous island in the world), one has to consider if "local" to nearly 8 million people is a dismissable demographic... and as has been shown above, her coverage is now going international. And toward recentism, and with respects... this is 2011 and she first received public recognition in 2009 for her "contributions to the performing arts community". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I see nothing wrong with the article – and a previous nomination, which occurred very recently, failed to reach consensus. Also, there is significant coverage in reliable third party resources, such as Newsday. --Bryce Wilson | talk 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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.