Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliet Simms

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The nominator's opinion has changed from deletion to making this a redirect to Automatic Loveletter, which is supported by some other contributors to the discussion, but the consensus from the arguments put forward here is to keep this as a separate article. Michig (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Simms[edit]

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

unsourced BLP Night of the Big Wind talk 02:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC) On request of Oakshade additional reason for the nomination: lack of souces that proof that she is notable as individual musician. Fails WP:GNG. Merging/redirecting looks a viable alternative! Night of the Big Wind talk 09:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep – Now a sourced BLP. Significant coverage in RS confers with topic notability, per WP:GNG. Speedy keep because the nomination doesn't state any specific rationale regarding topic notability, just that the article was unsourced. Added to the article:
  • Cridlin, Jay (September 5, 2008). "Sensational Simms Siblings". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved January 2, 2012.
  • Cridlin, Jay (July 22, 2010). "Warped Minds Want to Know..." St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved January 2, 2012.
  • "Automatic Loveletter". MTV. Retrieved January 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help) Includes a biography about Simms.
  • "Automatic Loveletter". VH1. Retrieved January 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help) Includes a biography about Simms.
  • Giambalvo, Carole (February 19, 2009). "Automatic Loveletter". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved January 2, 2012.
  • Beal, Jr., Jim; Goodspeed, John (February 27, 2009). "Night After Night". San Antonio Express. Retrieved January 2, 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Abbott, Jim (July 22, 2010). "Warped: Still a good time for bands, fans". Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved January 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
— Northamerica1000(talk) 01:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources about Juliet Simms? Or do you try to show that her band is notable? Night of the Big Wind talk 03:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Automatic Loveletter. All of the material I can find is in relation with the band. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This article is specifically about Simms, and mentions the band:
This article is both about Simms and Automatic Loveletter:
Additionally, these two have significant biographies about Simms:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I still maintain the opinion that these bios are still done with a context that she is notable because of the band. And if you read the article itself, it is an article about the band. As far as I can tell, all of her success (and thus notability) is from being with the band. It's all about the band. -- Whpq (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - and in this case those achievements are related to the band. -- Whpq (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete it. She looks notable enough to me. Plus there is also another wikipedia of another language has this article.Trongphu (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Automatic Loveletter (change of vote!!) Article is now sourced, but most sources point to her band Automatic Loveletter. As notability is not inherited (playing in a notable band does not make the individual musicians automatically notable), merging or redirecting to the band seems a better option then plain deleting. Night of the Big Wind talk 04:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The above appears to be a Comment, as nominators are not allowed to !vote. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call it what you want, Northamerica, but I have change opinion from delete to merge/redirect. Night of the Big Wind talk 14:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Automatic Loveletter as sources point to that band as the notable artist here, not her. RadioFan (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep there is no one arguing for deletion at this point. Merger discussions belong on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should it be kept while we are discussing a merger/redirect? It is not illegal to discuss an alternative to deletion if the opportunity arises to do so. But if you prefer it, I have no problem to suggest a deletion as I originally did. But keeping is the worst option available at this moment, IMHO. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, sorry I was being a bit of a pain. This venue is for discussions about deleting article (articles for deletion) and is the wrong place for discussing articles we agree should be kept in one form or another (merge, redirect etc.). The article talk page is the place for that. And this at the very least should be a redirect (and there is a decent case for keeping). So, wrong venue. Hope that makes sense. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
there can be and are routineline AFDs that end in results other than keep or delete. A merge result is looking likely but discussion should continue for a bit more .--RadioFan (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hobit. I understand your frustration. But despite this being called AfD, wp:AFD does say in its first para: "Articles listed are normally discussed ... after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Then the page may be kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." So, I think that sort of implies that discussion as to which of the courses to take is appropriate. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have merger tags and discussions for a reason. One of those would've been better. The AFD says at the top "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:" And list among other things "For a potentially controversial merger, consider listing it at proposed mergers." Anyway, its here now, so it can be dealt with here. Dream Focus 07:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if nom's only -- or perhaps even nom's primary -- suggestion were merger, that tagging for merger (or, I'm told, effecting it if the matter is clear) would be the best course. If nom's primary view is that deletion is best (as above), however, that would not suffice, and he would be forced to seek deletion (e.g., at AfD).
Once at AfD, the ensuing discussion allows consideration of alternatives, as the guideline indicates that one of the alternatives (keep, merge, redirect, transwikie, rename/move, userfy, or delete) will be the close. As I understand it.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nom's sole argument for deletion is moot as it's no longer an un-sourced BLP violation. The coverage of this person in the sources provided by Northamerica1000 demonstrate easily passing WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Redirecting would be incorrect as the existing content about this person outside of Automatic Loveletter would be off-topic in that article. --Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't delete/merge/redirect it. Keep it. The article SENSATIONAL SIMMS SIBLINGS in the St. Petersburg Times, even though you can only read part of it, is clearly all about her. With coverage like that, she meets GNG. Anyone who clicks on the Google news archive search link at the top of the AFD, would find interviews with her straight away. Always follow WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 22:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are aware that the St. Peterburg Times is the local newspaper in relation to to Juliet Simms and Automatic Loveletter? Night of the Big Wind talk 11:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (which even nom is open to) or Keep. Sufficient RS coverage exists that this should not be a delete. It does still have serious BLP issues (e.g., the tagged unreferenced statement as to who her boyfriend is), and whatever the result that (and other unreferenced material, which is at the moment the bulk of the article) should IMHO be fair game for excision. AfD of course is not for cleanup, but that doesn't prevent us from deleting unreferenced information (especially in BLPs) when we see it.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Hobit. No one want to delete! CallawayRox (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, redirecting or merging seems to be a better alternative then deleting. But merging/redirecting is also a better alternative then keeping. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:48, 12 January 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Juliet_Simms&oldid=1216076323"