Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halley DeVestern


 * 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. Wizardman 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Halley DeVestern

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

After carefully looking through and parsing all the "notability by association" mentions, I come up a little short. Major claim appears to be touring with Big Brother for a period. Big Brother's official site history doesn't mention her. A Google news search comes up with little beyond some calendar listings, this being the most substantial. Just doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC but I might be wrong. Pigman ☿ 06:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is a notable and up-and-coming musical artist and professional in the music business. I would not keep an article about her band, but between her tour with Big Brother, her work with her band, her CDs, her work with Bagel & Rat and Harry Fox, the compilations she's been in, her media appearances, etc, etc I think she merits an article. I'm sure there will be material to add as time goes on. Rosencomet (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "Up-and-coming" isn't very good argument for keeping the article (WP:ILIKEIT), nor is predicting the future ("...there will be material...")(WP:CRYSTAL). What I'd like to see is more substantial sources showing her notability. Pigman ☿ 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: A relatively soft 256 Google hits, but after scanning them all, while DeVestern is plastered all over every upload-it-yourself MP3 and lyrics sites, there is not a single mention of any reliable source. Nor can I find any record of the media interviews claimed by the article (except for those sourced ... on her own website).  There's no sign she was ever featured on CBS Good Morning, no sign she was ever a top editors' pick in Rolling Stone, and anything else is pure crystalballery.  This may be a WP:HEY candidate if such sources actually appear, but until then, there's not much substance behind the froth.    RGTraynor  15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm not sure how you got 256. I get 3800. Are you doing some strange filtering? ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete more Rosencruft. No evidence of multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I ask that the uncivil characterization above be deleted. Please AGF that I am trying to write good articles of people I consider notable. You are free to disagree, but please don't make up words out of my name; I think that borders on Personal attack.Rosencomet (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I've looked pretty hard and I can't find a single reliable source that this person exists let alone is notable - not even a one-liner in the NME. "Up and coming" is two-a-penny and we can't possibly list them all - that's why we have Myspace. —  iride  scent  19:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Have you tried a Google search 3700 hits for her name in quotes, all about a blues-rock singer. She profiled at AllMusic as well. The first thing you should do in searching is search for the name of the article (or person) in quotes on Google. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is obviously a notable performer who has toured with Big Brother and the Holding Company, recorded several well-received CDs, been reviewed in notable magazines, and opened for other notable acts. I don't even believe this attempt to kill this article. And Iridescent must not have looked very hard; Google comes up with gigs, interviews, reviews, website, photos, etc. Something else must be going on here or this article would not have been nominated.Oddio (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — Oddio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply: Great; could you cite a single reliable source? Reliable sources, by Wikipedia standards, are "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" including "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." By contrast, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."  Interviewed in what notable magazines, exactly, and when?  The CDs were well-received by what notable industry reviewers, and what are the cites?  And so on.   RGTraynor  20:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Allmusic (AMG) is my main source for music information. She has an article there They also review one of her albums. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * AMG is a directory of everything (the clue's in the name); an AMG listing is no more valid as an assertion of notability than an entry on Facebook. —  iride  scent  21:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of bands without a profile in AMG, much less a review. The clue is to recognize the difference between words and reality. Regardless, this is certainly within the letter of WP:MUSIC #1 -- there are multiple reviews of the album, she was on the cover of a magazine, and she has a good overview in AMG. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. Yes, AMG doesn't have pages on everyone in the sense that Myspace doesn't have pages on everyone; but AMG has no notability guidelines so the existence of an AMG page is no more an indication of notability than a mention in a blog - and I'm sure you know this perfectly well. As regards all these reliable sources people keep saying exist, why has nobody yet produced a single one? —  iride  scent  22:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The magazine cover is is in the article; the multiple reviews include a couple on the Talk page and the AMG review. And AMG does have notability guidelines, especially since they're paying people to do the research. They're only profiling people that they think will be looked at. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 22:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, no. That "article" on AMG is a press release, repeated verbatim on a number of other hits  .  The release claims that DeVestern has been profiled in Billboard, Good Times and Seventeen, but there is no evidence that this actually happened.    RGTraynor  11:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there is a scan of a "Good Times" cover featuring her - on her website, but no reason to think it's fake. However, I'm not particularly inclined to take a mention in Good Times (an advert-funded freesheet given out at music shops in NYC) as evidence of notability, as they profile whoever happens to be playing in the city that week, big or small (Barnaby Bye, anyone?). —  iride  scent  15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * AMG does not write in-depth articles about all musicians like they did about this one. They're all inclusive with their directory listings (who played what on what album, for example) but not at all about assigning writers to write profiles as they did with this person. --Oakshade (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - the reliable, independent sources just aren't there. Biruitorul (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are in fact several reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Guy. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Most claims appear to be inflated. The Billboard "feature" is just an AMG mirror. The MTV Online mention is from ten years ago and says that she "might one day join" "music's most influential women"; the "major success" quote is, in full: "Keep patiently singing the way you do now, and major success is inevitable." — Hello, Control Hello, Tony  13:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's enough secondary independent reliable sources to pass WP:BIO here. --Oakshade (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - non notable with no reliable sources to establish notability. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are in fact several reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment & Delete The biography on Allmusic.com is not a press release from the artist or her management. It is a biography written by a staff member on Allmusic.com who has written over 100 other biographies on the site according to a google search. Among other things, this staff member has also written the biographies of John Paul Jones and Shirley Manson. Many other websites - including Billboard (eg. Shirley Manson) - use the biographies provided by Allmusic simply because these biographies are generally regarded as authoritative. I also disagree with the characterisation of Allmusic.com as a directory. It does not list every artist who has ever released an album nor does it even provide a biography or review for every artist that is listed on the site. While a bio or review on Allmusic might be a good indication of notability, it is quite true that it is not on its own sufficient to confer notability. Since I was not able to find multiple non-trivial coverage of this artist on google, I have to go with delete as well. --Bardin (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Allmusic article isn't the only source. The Celebrity Cafe interview and the Long Island Voice are both other independent reliable sources that gave in-depth coverage of this person. --Oakshade (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.