Talk:Karen Civil

Overly promotional
My impression is that this draft is too promotional. I think there are too many section that contain too few nuggets of substance. If the article were to be rewritten to provide a more synthetic overview that is in-line with the sources, then it would be greatly improved. Delta13C (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources and info to work-in

 * http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2014/01/karen-civil-hustles-hard-xxl-issue-152/
 * http://www.ebony.com/entertainment-culture/ebony-reveals-its-2012-power-100-list-100#axzz4T5fj68Xa

According to the ozy.com article:


 * Made her first foray into her career as a publicist/"media planner" with the website Weezythanxyou.com, which connected Lil Wayne fans to him while he was in prison. (Covered here: and )


 * She is a college dropout

Delta13C (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * She has been accused of stealing from her clients: Delta13C (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Public relations pressure behind her 'rise'
Here is one source that documents how PR has pushed Civil to whatever notoriety she currently enjoys:

Delta13C (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And another
 * Delta13C (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Paid editors
Hi, can you please comment on the paid editors you uncovered, which you mentioned in the AfD? I think there is a way to tag them here, or on their talk pages, no? I think we should flag these as such and figure out a way to improve this article to mitigate their PR pushing. Delta13C (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, by adding the Advert and COI maintenance tags. Also, like any AfD, they can always be renominating later when enough time has passed. SwisterTwister   talk  02:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , Yea. I read through all of the sources cited in the article in an attempt to expand and improve the neutrality of the article, but there is just not enough information about her to generate a thorough article. This is a good example of how PR forces can result in enough sources to arguably pass GNG for the person being notable for none other than being a PR pusher herself. Delta13C (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , can you please link us to the information confirming these are paid editors? Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See the edits of both accounts involved, the second account (who edited this after the 1st) was confirmed as a spam-only account, there was clear COI and the manner of contributing. Another is the fact they interwined with other advertising-only accounts as it is. I also haven't closely examined every single of Dega's posted Twitter account but they seem to suggest working in the same "entrepreneur and marketing field" which is instantly not only COI flags, but also employee-specific flags. The user was notified about our policies but they continued contributing, that alone is violating policy. Next, is the fact they constantly asked for "re-review so the article is published" which is a common sign of motivations there's a deadline, otherwise no one would ever care about the "hurry and publish it". Next, is also how the Dega account would never actually improve things, but to neatly resort them as so. I imagine closely looking into the posted Twitter account may find other clues, but so far, there's enough to show it was paid contributing because they were all campaign articles (I have never seen an article that was part of a campaign and somehow not involved with COI payments). Happening to look at the other campaign subject, I see this which is actually copied in a personal website mirroring the subject's own thus a clear sign someone was involved with it, complete with putting that photo and it stayed even after this Dega account made "cosmetic changes" here which is when the other SPA accounts came in and lo and behold this is still in the article. SwisterTwister   talk  04:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Lede
The sources indicate that her creation of Weezythanxyou.com was a pivotal action in her career, one which provided notoriety that fed additional attention:


 * Quote from the OZY article by Thomas: "Which all meant that when it came time for Civil to build the website that made her famous—Weezythanxyou.com, the website that helped then-incarcerated Lil Wayne stay in touch with his fans while in prison—well, she was better prepared than most."


 * Quote from XXL article by Weiss: "When Lil Wayne was incarcerated, it was Civil who incubated the idea for weezythanxyou.com, the award-winning site that served as the Young Money boss’ chief mode of communication with the outside world. “During that difficult time in my life, working with Karen Civil to maintain my relevancy in music was important and essential to me,” Lil Wayne says about Civil’s contribution to his career."


 * Quote from The Source article by Hurt: "From tying Lil Wayne to fans throughout his incarceration with weezythanxyou.com to linking New Era with Dipset – Civil is a connector in a male dominated field narrating a story for everyone that is inspiring."

I think this bit needs to remain in the lede. Delta13C (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for these. I think they definitely establish some sources see this as an important moment in her career; yet at the same time, other sources describing her career trajectory don't mention the site at all, including some of the most well-regarded outlets that have covered her like the New Yorker and Forbes. So there doesn't seem to be consensus on what was the most important career piece. Ordinarily I'd suggest solving this by mentioning a few different career milestones in the lede, to adequately summarize the different analyses of reliable secondary sources--but I also agree with you and others who've pointed out above and at AfD that executed properly, this entry will be shorter than it is presently (distilling it down to the things we have of substance is on my to-do list). So it doesn't make much sense to lengthen the lead only to end up in a position where there's not much in the body of the entry that isn't already in the lead! Hence my thought it was just better to treat all the career specifics like this in the body of the entry instead. Does that makes sense? Innisfree987 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, just a quick note that for neutrality, we should probably avoid the word "notoriety" (since it has a negative connotation) unless we have specific sources describing her in those terms--as I believe we don't (I've read all of them at this point, I think) I'll go ahead and switch that in the lead, hope that's ok with everyone, please do point out if I'm missing something in the sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)