Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Holt

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 delete. This is a very close call between delete and no consensus. However, I am strongly pursuaded by the arguments of WP:BLP1E and as such have been swayed towards delete. Had the RaVen Quartet article been more substantial, I may have suggested a move, however, the article is currently a stub and any mention of Natalie Holt would overwhelm the article and still infringe WP:BLP1E policy. If the article is expanded and anyone feels inclined to merge Natalie Holt into it, please come and see me and I'll restore the article so that the merge can take place. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Holt

[edit]
Natalie Holt (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)

Someone famous only for one event. Though clearly a capable musician (as seen by her credits as a session musician) the only coverage she has received seems to be for her somewhat ill-considered protest. The protest should be, and is, covered in articles about Britain's Got Talent- this article is not needed. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks like"? Do you have any evidence that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines? We don't keep articles because some editor thinks it looks as though their subjects may be notable: we need verifiable reliable sources. Of the sources cited in the article, www.ravenquartet.co.uk is clearly not an independent source, www.unrealitytv.co.uk is not a reliable source (it says "Write a review of a show you’ve watched or a single/album you’ve heard. Share some reality TV gossip. If you really loved or hated a show or a particular contestant, tell us why! We’ll publish it right here on the blog. You can contribute as much or as little as you want.") and the others don't even mention Raven Quartet. My own searches have produced no more than passing mentions in reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's look at those three sources.
(1) The web site www.m-magazine.co.uk/ belongs to "PRS for Music". PRS describes itself as a "95,000 strong member community, which includes some of the world's best songwriters, composers and publishers" [1], and says that its purpose is "to collect and pay royalties to our members" [2]. It also states that m-magazine "is produced by PRS for Music for its 95,000 songwriter, composer and music publisher members" [3]. Clearly not an independent or neutral source. (2) www.bbc.co.uk/ is certainly a reliable and independent source. However, at present the page cited merely gives a three sentence mention that "Raven" was interviewed on a television show, and was to appear in a concert. There is also a picture on the page, with a note on it saying "This content doesn't seem to be working. Try again later." I guess that means that there is supposed to be a video of the interview, but even if there is, it is not clear how substantial coverage it is. Also, the cited page itself does not actually mention Natalie Holt. (3) We have a page at www.bgcpartners.com/. This page describes an awards ceremony, and gives a two-sentence mention of the fact that the Raven Quartet performed at the ceremony while the winners had their photographs taken. Scarcely substantial coverage of Raven, and again, no mention of Natalie Holt at all.
My conclusion is that the first and third sourced do nothing towards establishing notability under Wikipedia's guidelines, and the second one is of limited value for notability of Raven, and less still for Natalie Holt.
  • Delete I very much agree. A WP article shouldn't be part of the 15 minutes of fame. I very much doubt, that the public knew her before the BGT egging incident. Even this article was created after that.--Rob.HUN (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore I think that WP should be cleared of all those "celebrities" who are only famous for being "famous".--Rob.HUN (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.HUN (talk • contribs) 15:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides her notability I'm not really convinced about the sincerity of her "protest". It seems more like fishing for free publicity.--Rob.HUN (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions of Holt herself or her actions are irrelevant to this dicussion. January (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far that's all she could come up with for notability. :) Even this article was created AFTER the incident. That makes me wonder about the author's motives as well.--Rob.HUN (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The article looks one heck of a lot better than when I first saw it (and protected it...), but I'm not sure about the notability. I am prepared to userfy it if it's deleted, if the author wants more time to try again. Peridon (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rob - one more personal attack out of you and I will ask Peridon to block you. How dare you accuse me of assuming bad faith and how dare you sling accusations without doing the correct amount of research. I did not add mention of Holt's faux-BAFTA nomination to the article and had you checked the talk page of Natalie Holt or even the article history you would know that.
Peridon, thank you for your offer. I would be happy for this article to be userfied and this article redirected to the incident while I work on it further should consensus swing that way.--Launchballer 20:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed my remarks, because it really wasn't you who added the false BAFTA-nomination. However I still can't agree with you on the notability of this person.--Rob.HUN (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I hadn't been satisfied that the author was making a good faith creation, I might well have taken advantage of the rather virulent IP attack on the article and A7ed it before it was expanded. Now, can we confine things to the notability question? Unless the IP or someone in this discussion is really Simon Cowell, I can't see why a youngish viola player is arousing such a reaction. Peridon (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Purely because of her egg-throwing antics, in a nutshell. However, when I discovered that Holt had done other stuff which - on its own - would have fallen foul of WP:1EVENT, I decided that 1+1=>1 and that she deserved an article.--Launchballer 22:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the reaction against her, especially from the IP, some of whose work was revdeled. Peridon (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. All I know is that she launched an attack, live, on a very popular television series and #Egggate is now trending on Twitter. Why is it trending on Twitter? Haven't got a clue.--Launchballer 22:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (or move to RaVen Quartet) Prior to the egg-throwing incident, we have two citations that look fine to me, the M Magazine and BBC citations found by Difficultly north (which I've now added to the article). (The argument that M Magazine is not independent seems like an overly broad definition of what "independent" has to be.) So I concur with Launchballer: that prior coverage plus the (widely covered) egg-throwing is enough. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"An overly broad definition of what "independent" has to be"? An organisation with the avowed purpose of serving the financial interests is to be regarded as an independent source when publishing writings about those members??? What on earth would be a reasonable definition of "independent", in that case? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
M Magazine, AIUI, is more like a trade magazine/site read by those in the trade. They don't cover any and every PRS member. There is editorial control. You can't just join PRS and then have an interview done the next day. Not independent means not a press release by the band or its record label, and this is nothing like that. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a press release by the band or its record label would not be an independent source, but it is a mistake to think that those are the only sources that are not independent. An organisation which exists to further the interests of a particular group is going to be well-disposed towards members of that group, and is not independent. Also, a "trade magazine/site read by those in the trade" is a rather parochial source, with coverage in it doing little to suggest significance in the wider world, outside that trade group. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Independence' is clearly a continuum. I would disagree with your zeal to reject anything that isn't entirely independent as having no value to attest notability. I also think that dismissing a trade publication as parochial is imposing too high a threshold for notability. Notability generally means notability within one's field. Bondegezou (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that would make Holt notable for two events. Support an article on the group, though.--Launchballer 17:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability has not been established. This individual's attempt to disrupt a live TV production lasted all of 5 seconds. If that is a benchmark then where is the article on the individuals who disrupted a much more notable event with a bigger live audience and a massive world-wide TV audience during the 2013_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles#Final? Barely a mention. The link between her antics and some group she performs with is tenuous as a means of establishing individual article worthiness. Leaky Caldron 17:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MUSICBIO #1, Holt would need to be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself", which she is.--Launchballer 18:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the era of web2.0 perhaps this criterion should be rewritten.--Rob.HUN (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - how very pisspoor. To copy the list from page analysis:
  • Rob.HUN - delete
  • Launchballer - keep
  • JamesBWatson - delete
  • Bondegezou - keep/merge (or indecisive, to use Rob's wording)
  • J Milburn - delete
  • Peridon - neutral
  • Gene93k - hasn't voted
  • Difficultly north - move
  • January - delete
  • Factuallee
  • Leaky caldron - delete
  • Cavarrone - redirect
  • 86.42.72.87 - hasn't voted
  • 94.27.137.40
  • AnemoneProjectors - delete
Excluding the suspicious accounts, I count six deletes, 3 neutral, 1.5 keeps (counting Bondegezou's as half each because one editor = one vote), 1.5 merges to Raven Quartet, 1 redirect (to Egggate).--Launchballer 12:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no RaVen Quartet article with which to merge. I think a suggestion to move to RaVen Quartet is basically a 'keep': it's saying the same material should be kept, whether it's a Natalie Holt article that also describes RaVen Quartet or a RaVen Quartet article that also describes Natalie Holt. Bondegezou (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's 6 delete, 3 neutral, 3 merges, 1 redirect.--Launchballer 14:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you counting? AFD isn't closed based on numbers. –anemoneprojectors– 11:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is it based on? Anyway, I counted because Bondegezou disputed Rob's numbers.--Launchballer 11:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion, consensus and policy (because sometimes people will give poor reasons for wanting to keep or delete a page). See also Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. By the way, I didn't mean you specifically, even though my comment came directly below yours. –anemoneprojectors– 12:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's something a little suspect about counting merge votes as keeps if there's nowhere to merge to. The article, currently, is a badly sourced BLP- the Unreality TV blog and the user-submitted info on Discogs really aren't appropriate sources- this is not really material that should be merged anywhere, and I think any closing administrator is going to be aware of that. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Unreality TV source has now been replaced with one by The Mirror and a source has been added for her playing with Madness. Excluding the Discogs-sourced section, that is two events (albeit one for Holt and one for Raven).--Launchballer 14:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty certain that the Quartet is notable- there are three or four decent sources about them. The question now, I think, is more of an editorial one- is it going to best practice to have an article about Holt, or is it going to be best to cover her involvement with the group in the group's article and her involvement with "egggate" only on BGT articles? Bearing in mind that this is a BLP (and she is now probably most famous for something negative), I'd be inclined towards the latter, but I don't think there's a clearcut answer either way. J Milburn (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best thing to do is to simply write the article on RaVen Quartet first - I am happy to do that - store this article at User:Launchballer/Natalie Holt and then talk about whether or not she deserves an article.--Launchballer 14:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great plan. J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fourty-eight fucking hours later... I've made a start on RaVen Quartet here.--Launchballer 20:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on RaVen Quartet, what's the opinion?--Launchballer 22:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2013 (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/Natalie_Holt&oldid=1091473098"