Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlene Zelina


 * 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. KTC (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Arlene Zelina

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Being notable on Youtube is not enough - article needs more reliable sources. Satellizer talk  contribs 06:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Further information is being provided on Arlene Zelina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckenn18 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 5 January 2013‎
 * Delete. I did a search and there's just not enough out there for her to pass WP:BIO, let alone WP:MUSBIO. She's signed, but has yet to release anything and while she seems to be mildly popular on YouTube, she's not so overwhelmingly popular that I'd suggest adding her to List of YouTube personalities. She seems to have only gotten a brief bit of coverage recently and all by local press. She's just not notable enough at this time to be added to Wikipedia. If she gets this coverage then I have no problem with her being re-added.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some stuff has been added since I first posted this so I've taken another look, but offhand everything is comprised of trivial mentions and such. She might and I stress might be redirectable to the list of YT personalities, but I'm still not seeing much individual notability. It also doesn't help that the page right now reads like a fan page. I'll try to edit down the promotional tone.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I hold by my delete decision, although I suppose that a redirect might not be a terrible thing. Here's the thing: she has been signed and is mildly popular, but has yet to make any big splashes. Of the sources that were on the page previously, most of them were non-usable for various reasons. Here is a rundown of the original sources:
 * Totally usable news article. This one I kept.
 * Routine listing of an event. This isn't usable as a source, as routine performance listings are unusable as even trivial sources.
 * This is just a posting of a video, something that isn't really usable as a reliable source at all, especially not in this aspect.
 * Another routine listing of a performance.
 * This is on Seacrest's site, but was not actually posted by Seacrest himself. It's really not in-depth enough to show notability, but it does sort of work as a trivial source so I left it.
 * This is just her YouTube channel. Not usable as a RS.
 * This is a posting of a YT video. Unusable as a RS.
 * , She's very, very briefly mentioned in these two Yahoo articles in relation to something else. Maybe usable as a trivial source, but it really only mentions that she was signed and we already have a good reference for that already, so it's unnecessary.
 * Very, very brief article on a radio website that's a rehash of her getting signed. Trivial and unnecessary for the above reasons.
 * Another trivial mention, but this one I think I left. Still not enough to show notability but could be used as a trivial source.
 * Usable enough, I added this one. However with just news reports of her getting signed, this in itself is not really enough.
 * This is just a posting of a video. It's not usable as a RS.
 * This is a tweet and would be seen as a WP:PRIMARY source since it's by someone involved with her career. It's also unnecessary as we have plenty of confirmation from other sources that she was signed.
 * I kept this one since it confirmed that she performed at a concert, but I'm not sure that it was really a big enough one to really count towards much. As far as being a YT partner goes, that's not exactly hard to do. From what I can see, it's something that anyone can really do.
 * This is an uploaded video of her performance. Not usable as a RS.
 * , These are facebook photos. Facebook is not usable as a reliable source to show notability.
 * This is just a routine notification of a performance.
 * The thing is, she isn't notable yet. Will she be? Maybe. She's certainly more promising than most. But here's the deal: She's performed at concerts but hasn't gotten any notice from anyone other than the people putting on the concerts. Of the press she has gotten, it's all talking about the same thing: that she's been signed and that she was somewhat popular on YT. Being popular on YT doesn't really mean much on here if you haven't gotten good coverage in RS to show that they're overwhelmingly notable. She's popular, having over 5 million views, but she's not at the ZOMG level of popularity that someone of say, Harry Partridge is at where you've gotten over 90,000,000 views. She's mildly popular and that's pretty much about it right now. Will it change? Maybe. We'll have to wait until she releases her first album and gets more publicity. For right now she just isn't notable enough to merit her own article. I did edit the article somewhat heavily, as the previous version not only sounded like a fan page, but also put in a lot of content that wasn't even in most of the sources. Be aware that oversourcing with unusable sources and being overly promotional can often work against showing notability for a subject. As far as stuff like performance circuits and associations go, notability is not inherited by Zelina having played in someplace that someone famous has been in, performing their songs, or even being compared to them.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice - David Gerard (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Based on the above comments, she might be on the borderline of achieving notability, and I therefore might be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt, but the article is very heavily promotional, and would need to be started over.  DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - per others. United States Man (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on the information and citations provided in the article I believe it should be kept: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katierachelle (talk • contribs) 01:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost none of the sources in the article argue for notability, as I've stated above. Also, please stop edit warring. The version you keep reverting to does more to harm the article's chance of being kept than help.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: one mention in a reliable source, and the story indicates she might become notable some day. But not yet. (If she was from a larger country, the coverage might be there, but that's a hypothetical.) I completely agree with Tokyogirl79's thorough, excellent analysis of sources cited.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, largely per Tokyogirl79's anyalysis of the sources. Doesn't pass our music guidelines at this time. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with Tokyogirl79's 'You Tube', 'FaceBook' & 'Twitter' does not make you noteable! • deengun (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deangunn (talk • contribs)
 * 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.