- Rebecca Black (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
First of all, since the last closing there has been an abundance of very significant coverage from reliable sources like Time (magazine), Salon.com and the Long Island Press
with language like "has become an internet sensation." [1][2][3]. WP:BLP1E clearly states it is for "low profile" individuals which of course this person is not.
Secondly, as the name Deletion Review suggests, it's a review that needs to be properly reviewed. A closing within an hour of a DRV opening, admittedly started with troll-like language, without the community scrutiny is not a proper review.
Note that I am not yet advocating the recreation of this article. (EDIT - That has changed -see below --Oakshade (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)) What keeps me from doing so is my personal concern of doing no harm. There's speculation that this person is only 13 years old and that was based on a tweet by reportedly Black herself. What is clear is that the video itself is notable and I think at least the video should have an article. As of writing this, there is now over 2.25 million youtube hits of the video.[4][reply]
Let's follow our own rules and now have this properly reviewed. --Oakshade (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE:More sources since this DRV began: Entertainment Weekly - "Rebecca Black' 'Friday': The Internet's latest bizarre music video obsession"
Huffington Post - "Rebecca Black's 'Friday' Becomes Internet Sensation" Forbes - "Rebecca Black: Why is She Trending on Twitter?" Sydney Morning Herald - Who is Rebecca Black? And is she really bigger than Japan? E! Online - "Friday" Singer Rebecca Black: The Next Justin Bieber?" International Business Times - Watch Rebecca Black's 'Friday' – the internet’s bizarre music video of the worst song ever known to man CNN - Rebecca Black's 'Friday' -- the good, bad and ugly of a viral Web Rolling Stone - Why Rebecca Black's Much-Mocked Viral Hit 'Friday' Is Actually Good USA Today - "Who is Rebecca Black and why do we care about her?" Television New Zealand - "Who is Rebecca Black?" --Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a completely unsourced WP:BLP, that contained negative allegations, and even its unsourced assertions of fact failed to present any case for notability. Speedy deletion is a no brainer there. But if you can fix those problems, by posting a new version that has references that clearly establish notability and support all statements of fact, you're welcome to do so. Though given the speedy deletion history of this it might be less contentious if you were to start a draft in userspace first, and then come here to get opinions on whether it's valid. postdlf (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- allow recreation Seems like there is enough sources now. I do think that Postdlf's recommendation to make a draft in userspace is not a bad idea. In general, if there's a draft of something in userspace it is easier to make a judgment about whether or not there's enough sourced content. Also would it maybe make more sense to have an article about the song? It seems like the sources are focused on that, not on her? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse previous deletions, allow recreation Speedy deletions don't need to come to DRV: you just need to understand and overcome the speedy deletion criteria which applied. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, and I think a draft would definitely be best. All previous articles have failed WP:BLP spectacularly. We would need not only sufficient reliable sources but also some sense that a policy-compliant article is possible. Chick Bowen 22:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow re-creation- I've not seen the original version, so I won't comment on that, but there's certainly enough out there now to justify a properly sourced article. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Somebody created Friday (Rebecca Black song). I've wikified it and added sources. An anon has come in and added un-sourced content, but the article of the song likely won't be harmful unless there's attack-type content on the singer. In that case, WP:BLP needs to be vigorously enforced.--Oakshade (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article is to be created, this seems to be the best option, as it allows a better level of control over the BLP issue. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, no recreation - A 13 yr old girl in a shitty video on youtube and gets noticed for said shittiness. Nothing wrong with the deletion, nothing else to see with a one trick pony. Sooner or later, this project really needs to grow up. Tarc (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I find irony in claiming to care so much about BLPs but you are willing to use foul language with respect to the work of a 13-year old girl. If that comment were _in_ the article we'd remove it in a heartbeat. It doesn't belong here either. Hobit (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Srsly Hobbit, save your faux outrage for someone who will actually fall for it. I am endlessly frustrated with the tabloid swill that passes for encyclopedia content around here, and if it manifests in a s-bomb or two, then so be it. Tarc (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just trying to live in that optimistic land where you notice the inconsistency of your behavior and fix it. Hobit (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for where that inconsistency doesn't exist? Gotcha. Tarc (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not helping your case by using foul language and then stating "this project really needs to grow up."--Oakshade (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation though given the apparent issues with previous versions, the BLP1E issue and the age of the subject a userspace draft seems like a reasonable first step. I strongly suspect coverage of the event rather than the subject is the way forward at the moment. Hobit (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-create as redirect to Friday (Rebecca Black song) for the time being, at least until further information about Rebecca Black herself becomes available. So far it seems like very little information about her not connected to this particular song has become available. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did the salting after seeing elements of 4chan involvement and obvious BLP problems. I strongly disagree with the nominator's proposition that this person isn't a "low-profile person." She's a minor whose YouTube posting took off, not a US senator. The video might be notable (I give at a two-week max shelf life), but the person isn't. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was a kid in her room who made a video of herself intended for her friends, you'd have a point. But somebody who willingly records and performs in a professional production and signs contracts with a high publicity media company and then said production gets worldwide attention, then the "low profile" aspect becomes history. --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm satisfied with the present status quo, and I would be more inclined to agree overall if the subject was five years older; We now have sources, of a sort, which were clearly lacking before yesterday (because they didn't exist yet!) Separately, I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of documenting this sort of thing until it's at least made it beyond Warhol time. Acroterion (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've boldly recreated the article as a redirect to the song, pending the result here and a likely AfD of the song article. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse Lifebaka's action; recommend a protected redirect for the time being. WP:BLP1E and all that. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and subsequent redirection, at least for now, and wait to see if the girl herself attains any kind of non-BLP1E notability. At the moment, it seems to be the vid of the song that's notable, and it's notable only because of the viral reaction to it - and we now have Friday (Rebecca Black song), written pretty neutrally and with decent sources. I think that's all that can really be supported at the moment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Friday (Rebecca Black song) has now been nominated for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friday (Rebecca Black song) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - the article about the single is plenty, if she continues to remain it the public notability and releases more records then we can revisit, right now shes a one event itunes sales promo. I have no objections to the redirect. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation ample biographical sourcing in Rolling Stone and Time magazine, we have articles on child actors such as Elle Fanning. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Friday (Rebecca Black song). At this point review of the original deletion is moot, because events have moved on. I agree with Lifebaka's solution; for now, the song article is plenty; when she releases another record or stars in her own movie or something like that, we can revisit that.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and Keep the redirect Mostly for the simple fact that there seems to be nothing known about her unrelated the song, but either way she herself is non-notable even though the song is.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - new significant coverage - Until today, there hasn't been much coverage on Black herself. It's mostly been focused on the song. A Black profile with interview by The Daily Beast was just published. There will be more interviews with Good Morning America and On-Air With Ryan Seacrest. --Oakshade (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While this does change things, my issue is that none of these really give any sort of notability to her outside of the song. Yes, we now could technically write a short bio on her, but it wouldn't be the best idea.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That actually is the notability. Besides passing WP:GNG, also passes WP:MUSICBIO - has notable and charted song, and per sources, representative of a notable style - an awful style, but still a notable one. --Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And once again, this is a case where, while we technically could make an article, it absolutely is not a smart thing to do at thing point for this 13 year old girl. Besides, in just a week we'll probably have a much better insight; either this will have totally blown over and can all be summed up in the song article, or she'll have managed to stay on the scene and make a name for herself. Wikipedia isn't the news, and it isn't Perez Hilton, we sure as hell can just wait on this one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There comes a point where information about the singer is off-topic in the song article and we're arriving at that point. When 13 year old Tanya Tucker had a hit, and if Wikipedia existed then, it would've been a bad decision to not have an article of her. We do have articles of children, even much lower profile ones than this teenager. If her song continues to move up the chart, even make it in the top 10, and she continues to promote herself on a national stage, there would be no question at that point of have an article. --Oakshade (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but we certainly do have to treat the case of a girl made popular because he song was considered terrible very differently from an actual signed artist like the one you used as an example. Technically with all these youtube videos that become incredibly popular for a few weeks only to fade away an article could be made about the creator and not just the creation, but that absolutely does not mean it should be done. Hell, I know that technically having a popular song trumps ONEEVENT, but given the circumstances we may want to look at this a bit less rigidly.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreate. Black is hitting the Billboard magazine charts which makes her independently notable per WP:MUSIC and puts the situation definitively to rest. Chubbles (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And this is really one of those situations where we should consider the exceptions that MUSICBIO allows for. Yes, this is a song that people are buying, but we really should be treating this as though it is a viral video; sometimes there's a real notability of not just the subject but its creator in the end, often there is not. This should be easy to determine in just a week or two, if not by Saturday. And tomorrow is Saturday, and Sunday comes afterwards.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the need to treat it any different than other one-hit-wonders, flashes-in-the-pan, or novelty-hit flukes that have peppered the charts over the decades; charting makes her a subject of enduring historical interest (as any Joel Whitburn book will show you). Redirecting to the song, after all, is a bizarre organization of knowledge (only on Wikipedia, I guess - any other reference work would redirect the song to the artist, since that's what people search for and how they conceptualize musical information). In any case, her YouTube video has acquired ten million hits since I typed those words above, and the media onslaught has not abated, with "Rebecca Black" as much or more often than "Friday" appearing in the headlines of the articles. Chubbles (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreate - The situation has changed dramatically since this DRV began several days ago. As mentioned above, her song is charting and that alone has this topic passing WP:MUSICBIO. WP:BLP1E clearly stipulates that it is meant for "low profile" individuals. This person is a signed artist with a high publicity production company and is clearly embracing the notability (not hiding under her bed and wishing to remain private) appearing and performing on Good Morning America and now secondary sources are becoming decidedly positive. Rolling Stone just reported "She is actually a pretty decent singer" in their "What You Need to Know About Teen Viral Phenom Rebecca Black" article. Harm is no longer being done by having an article to Wikipedia standards. Also note that since the redirect, most of the community does not know of the existence of this DRV and therefore not available for scrutiny after tying the "Rebecca Black" search term. --Oakshade (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above "recreate" is by the DRV nominator. Do not double-count, please. Tarc (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - I the "nomiantor" simply opened this DRV for discussion and specifically stated "Note that I am not yet advocating the recreation of this article". The above is no "double." --Oakshade (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Friday Friday I mean Recreate. Meets WP:MUSICBIO which trumps WP:BLP1E.--Otterathome (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreate - I don't see the WP:BLP1E argument here, given the community consensus at WP:MUSICBIO that a single hit song confers the presumption of notability to the artist. Why should she be treated differently than every other one-hit wonder in the world? She has a hit song, not to mention the fact that she otherwise meets the WP:GNG due to substantial news coverage. Oren0 (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as redirect' - the notability still only pertains to the one song she's ever recorded. An article for Black would repeat information. The information can all justifiably enhance the page for "Friday".~ZytheTalk to me! 12:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Biographical information of Black would be off-topic in the song article. And in fact you're admitting she passes WP:MUSICBIO. None of our guidelines bans articles of "one hit wonders."--Oakshade (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But in the context of someone who has only produced one-hit, hear me out... the story of how her parents came to find the agency, or Black's reaction to it, and what not, are only of importance to the song. The song is the thing. Whether Black was born in Honolulu or Orange County is hardly notable. She's not a notable person. She's a person who wrote a song which is notable for what it tells us about Web 2.0, taste, and other related phenomena in 2011. Would Black's article have a "personal life" section? Would we discuss her grades at school if we got a source for that? If she died it might make for interesting article. But as it is, she's not a cultural symbol. Or, if the other ARK musicians took off, there would be room for some fascinating articles about that label, its artists, and a timeline of their sudden rise to popularity.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're actually just talking about regular article editing issues, not notability ones. You might not care about where a subject was born, but that is in fact very basic biographical information that's included in almost every biography on Wikipedia. In fact, we have much more biographical source information on this topic than most "one hit wonders."--Oakshade (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But what, beyond, "here's where she lives, and she likes Justin Bieber" do we have on her that would warrant an article separate from Friday?--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely. I fear we're creating an article about her just because we can according to policy, not because we it makes sense, or because there is anything to say about her. The risk of content duplication is huge, too; the "background" for "Friday" is the background to Ms. Black's "career". Of one song. Which is "Friday".~ZytheTalk to me! 23:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is almost always content duplication between music articles that include the musician in one article and the band and/or song in another. There is no WP:ABSOLUTELYNODUPLICATION rule in Wikipedia. There is always topic specific content in one article that doesn't belong in another, just as biographical content of Rebecca Black doesn't belong in the "Friday" song article, particularly that Black has become a star and passes WP:MUSICBIO whether anyone likes it or not. And now there are reports that Black is recording a new song,[5] which is of course doesn't belong in the "Friday" article. --Oakshade (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreate: We we we so excited that Ms. Black is notable.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And to clarify, what Silver seren says below is sufficient for the article to exist.--Milowent • talkblp-r 01:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|