Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Civil


 * 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 keep. Almost all contributors who have examined the sources available about this person conclude that they meet the requirements of WP:GNG. It has been alleged that paid contributors have contributed to the article, but apart from the nominator nobody seems to see this as a reason to delete - from which I conclude that consensus is that this problem, if it is one, can be fixed by editing (or blocks or other sanctions, if need be). I must disregard 's disconcerting opinion that the person is not notable because "it" [sic] is "nothing worthy of being noticed": This runs counter to our constant practice of using "notable" not as a measure of our own view of how important a topic is or ought to be, but as a term of art with the meaning of "has been substantially covered by reliable sources".  Sandstein  23:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Karen Civil

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The user is welcome to continue making changes in hopes of improvements but my PROD still applies by the sole concern of the previously removed advertising immediately being restored: When an article cares to blatantly specify everything from her career, and that's also simply in the first few sentences, that's blatant enough; next is the sheer blatancy there's such trivial awards and they're obvious since they themselves say "Not yet notable" especially when they explicitly say "A not yet notable person and is still hoping to establish herself", that alone should've been enough to not enough, especially now that WP:NOT applies, given how closely emulative this is to her own LinkedIn-esque page. Next, is the other sheer blatancy of published and republished PR sources, regardless of publication or name, and the damnning fact searches mirror this, thus there's simply nothing to genuinely (1) suggest an acceptable article to begin with, but then the fact there's nothing to even hope for meaningful improvements. This itself has the signs of being PR-motivated so there's simply nothing to suggest otherwise, worse when this was resubmitted when repeatedly declined with stated concerns. Finally, the advertising in Draftspace was repeatedly removed but restored (another common sign of advertising campaigning), showing the simply outstanding blatancy here.'' SwisterTwister   talk  18:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete This article looks like it's a case of a not notable person trying to make a name for themselves by creating her own Wikipedia page. Grammarphile (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure how reading the sources or even just the entry itself could give rise to this conclusion. At the time of your comment, the entry contained conflicting accounts even of the subject's own age and birthday, as well as a major error in the chronology of her career (...she was a radio intern in 2002, not 2015). Giving the subject a major demotion is not the stuff of autobiographies. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Can you explain more about this removing of advertising? What was advertised and where? Delta13C (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, this is a broad assertion of "blatant advertising" which you fail to support. If you are going to say that someone is blatantly promoting themselves on Wiki than I think you need to show 1) COI and 2) a lack of reliable sources. If there are enough sources to pass GNG, then there is a reasonable threshold that's being met. Did you do WP:BEFORE, or are you going to reject any sources about her "regardless of publication or name?" Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Civil is treated in a non-trivial manner in several RS over time. Here is the break-down: 1) The New Yorker 2016 this is full article just about Civil, 2) Black Enterprise 2014 (sub needed), this is an article entirely about Civil which includes extensive quoting from Civil about her work, 3) Forbes 2015 this is an article entirely about Civil, 4) Kansas City Star 2014 an entire article about Civil, 5) Vibe 2015 covering her philanthropy in Haiti. I didn't include the interviews she has in Essence, Vibe and other RS (since we don't count those as independent). These sources show that she passes GNG and the article can, indeed, be meaningfully improved. Indeed, someone is working on it as I write this. BTW,, what makes you think she made the page? The article was created by  and I'm seeing no connection from them to Civil. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The reliable and verifiable sources about the subject included in the article go above and beyond the minimum notability standard. Nominator has failed to meet the obligations specified by WP:BEFORE to attempt to address issues before bringing the article to AfD. That the article could have been (and was) readily modified to address the nominator's sole concerns best demonstrates this failure; nor for that matter can I see what "blatant advertising" existed when the article was nominated. Alansohn (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources above are clear interviews and it's unfortunate when we must resort "Meets GNG" when it clearly violates WP:NOT policy, which is far important. Also, there was no "failing" of Before, when all I found was clear PR. Are we seriously going to call PR as "independent sourcing?" Only if we want to damn ourselves. SwisterTwister   talk  23:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have to call bullshit here. "Making Your Own Way: Digital Renaissance Woman Karen Civil Charts a Path as a Brand Ambassador" in Black Enterprise and "Beyond the bling: Karen Civil advises rap stars and the rest of us" in the Kansas City Star from 2014; "From Media Maven To Philanthropist, Karen Civil Builds The LiveCivil Playground In Haiti" from Forbes and "Lil Wayne And Karen Civil Give Back To Haiti For The Holidays" from Vibe in 2015; and "The Woman Making Hillary Clinton Cool" in The New Yorker from 2016 are all equivocally about Karen Civil. In addition to the dozen other sources here, these are all examples of in-depth, independent coverage from reliable and verifiable sources about the subject; they are NOT "clear interviews" as you purport. You only damn yourself with these false assertions. If you continue to fail to follow WP:BEFORE and persist in misrepresenting sources, it seems clear that you should be systematically excluded from AfD. Alansohn (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment and analysis - Very well, let's look at each source: the Forbes article itself, regardless of being a staff-article, actually has such blatant quotes as Karen Civil rose to prominence as a master at building hip-hop artists’ profiles and sales online. Now she’s turned her talents to building something completely different....(hold for her "in my home country and childhood quote) .... She knew music was her passion in high school - "I chose to choose my own path .... "Often said to be the next Oprah (yet this is vague, given it simply says "by others" (so this could be anything from a PR webhost or something she paid for herself) .... until ending that. The next one, BlackEnterprise is full of quotes, but the first is Approaching her business and personal life with respect is how she established a valuable reputation for herself and the next, NewYorker, is full of interviewed quotes or immediate name-drops of "Usher, Nicki Minaj, Backstreet Boys, Dre, J. D. Williams and Drake" all in the entire article, something that was itself interviewed, hence not independent or significant. When an article has to closely focus with things such as "At her homeschool at home, she...." or "Her memories of this and that" are only from her own words, not anyone else, regardless of whatever or whoever published. This NewYorker itself is a clear "today's interview"-esque and is itself actually focused about the political campaign and her comparisons of it. The KansasCityStar itself is a localized blog column by a blogger, which says Karen Civil isn’t just the social media genius whom stars like Lil Wayne turn to, she’s a motivational speaker, too (note the name-drop)....She’s often asked how she made the jump from Jersey girl to Los Angeles It-girl and she ran the Backstreet Boys site....Karen wants them to dig deeper than champagne dreams and five-star wishes and the next paragraph each is still literally an interviewed quote: "She said....She's been touring recently....}} until 2 "She says" is closing the article. For God's sake, see the Vibe which says at the bottom: Information via KarenCivil.com. If this is the best we have, that's not substance, that's recostumed interviews and quotes, not substance, worse from a local news blog column (regardless of publication or name) because that's what the contents still are. The first thing I started this AfD was with policy, which we follow, not ignore. SwisterTwister   talk  04:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is very biased. Just because a news article is saying good things about her, or dropping names doesn't make it PR, nor does it make it advertising. Quoting her doesn't make an article into an "interview" either. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no bias since I explicitly quoted from the sources themselves including the one that, in bold, says "Information from her own website". We cannot, in a snowball's chance of hell, ever consider that independent. "Because a news source says good things about her" is because it's her own republished quotes and PR, how is that independent? Quoted ng her for nearly every sentence as the highlighted one above show, state clearly it's quote republishing hence not independent. Everything I said above was in policy. I never made this AfD for politics, I made it because of policy, something we follow. SwisterTwister   talk  21:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as nothing worthy of being noticed, which is the definition in WP:N. That it has bern noticed anyway is an foolish attempt to pretend to compensate for  centuries of prejudice and discrimination which have continued to have a real and detrimental effect of real accomplishments. We are not willing (& perhaps not even able ) to deal with  these, so instead we pretend that triviality is accomplishment in order to obtain a deceptive and imaginary balance. Personally I consider it degrading to any honest person in any of the groups discriminated against to do this, and I'm surprised that others don't see it similarly.  What I think they're doing, is finding it more comfortable to convince themselves that the problem has been solved, and hide from their inability to prevent  the continuing forces of racism and sexism from working their evil   Trying to delete articles like this is probably hopeless at the moment, and I think the only possible solution is to stubbify and try again in a year or do. WP is not necesarily driven by rational considerations. But a real encyclopedia should be, and this is one of the many ways we fall short.   DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , you've completely subverted and twisted the concept of notability into being a subject "worthy of being noticed", by which you seem to mean what *YOU* have arbitrarily decided is worthy of *YOUR* attention. WP:GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Wikipedia interprets that to mean the significant coverage in real-worl publications, which is the standard met here; you've decided that the coverage she has received should be systematically ignored because she is a charity case due to her race and sex or some combination thereof. I have no idea how you have objectively made that determination. We fall short if we allow these kinds of bigotry to determine our decisions. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "worthy of notice" is right there is the guideline.  We tend to ignore that part. if it is seen as an alternative requirement "or", which is how the guideline  literally words it, it would mean we could cover anyone we think ought to be published about, which I agree with you is absurd; so it must mean "and", or at least a factor to be considered . An  example of the incoherent and self-contradictory  wording which permeates WP:N.  DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ,It makes no sense that race has entered this discussion. I find this very troubling. For all, please see my comments on the talk page for my suggestions about how to improve the article. I don't doubt that Civil has benefited from being plugged into PR circles, but since this is her field, isn't that to be expected? Delta13C (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought it was time I named the elephant in the room. But I didn't mention race--that's your own interpretation. I meant any distinguishable group with  a constituency, and I've seen here a wide range of different ones.  I very strongly support trying to get articles on people and organizations in such groups, -- provided the people are actually notable. Including them is what makes up a little for past discrimination. Including the ones who aren;t perpetuates it.  DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the elephant I saw in the room... It's telling that you did, however, . The subject of the article passes GNG. That's it. It doesn't matter why she was considered worthy of notice by the media: the fact is that she was, and in very reliable sources. It seems to me that you are asserting that the people !voting Keep are trying to keep this article just because either 1) she's black, 2) she's a woman, 3) both. It also seems to me that you are suggesting the media only noticed her because she's a black woman in order to combat centuries of prejudice: not based on her own merit. That's an extremely troubling assertion. How do you know WHY she was noticed by the press? Do you know for a fact they wrote about her just to combat prejudice? Maybe she was noticed because she has done significant work in her field. She passes the bar for GNG: and that should be enough. It's deeply troubling that editors are deliberately trying to poke holes in GNG. Yes, GNG is broad, but it is supposed to be. The fact is that there is plenty of room for anyone who passes GNG to be included on Wikipedia. And since this is one of the largest sources of information in the world, they should be included so that people can have a neutral overview of people who are discussed in the media. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The entry abundantly meets our sourcing standards for notability. Moreover, the sources themselves explicitly emphasize their view of the subject's significance. The New Yorker: "The Woman Making Hillary Clinton Cool." Forbes: a "media maven" with "a mini-empire in digital hip-hop media and strategic marketing by the time she celebrated her 29th birthday." Essence: "When it comes to social media, Karen Civil is the queen." Kansas City Star: compares her to Lena Dunham as a "voice of the young generation of women." XXL: "industry power player" with repeated comparisons to Oprah. Etc. Any given editor may consider work concerning young women, hip-hop or the internet to be beneath our attention (as an aside: I'm not surprised to encounter bias against the first two, but the third never ceases to amaze because we are having this conversation on an internet project), but, well, I've never been so persuaded of the value of our insistence editors may not substitute their personal opinions for the analysis given by reliable secondary sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is no secret that I consider the GNG outmoded. It seemed a clever idea at first, but it yields very erratic results, depending on the density of coverage and whether one chooses to regard any particular reference as "comprehensive" and "independent".  For most ccontested AfDs, I could argue either way on those two adjectives.  I know we're not likely to get rid of it any time soon, but even the current wording of WP:N makes it clear there can be exceptions, and that passing it does not guarantee an article;. That leaves us free in any one particular case to ignore it whenever there is consensus to do so. But I normally bring this up only when it yields whatI consider particular anomalous results and my experience is that about half thetime when I do, the consensus agrees with me. Even if the WP:N were not specific about exceptions, there would be anyway, as there are to all WP rules; IAR is the best of all arguments when there is clear consensus to use it.  (And of course I nevr make admin decisions on the basis of my own standards, only on what I think would clearly be consensus.)
 * The standard for accomplishments is the same for all ages and other d personal factors. In practice, in some fields younger people are less likely to have major accomplishments than more mature ones. (In some other fields, of course, it can be just the opposite). If they do attract press notice, it's likely to be because of what the press calls human interest, and I call TABLOID.
 * As for elephants, I think the current attitude amounts to "pretty good for a ____). I think when worded that way, most people do realize that it's an insult.  DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I find your penultimate sentence very insulting indeed, but not in the way you intend, I don't think. I'll step out now. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but needs massive rewrite: I am not impressed that most of the sources present information that appears to be pushed by PR forces and press releases, but these are also not trivial sources. It may be impossible for us to tease apart this tangle. I think the best we can do is probe for all sources and generate an unbiased article. I am also concerned that there could be paid editors at work here: 1) The picture also appears published in some sources in which she is interviewed; who is the owner of that image? 2) How does someone know her birthday? The date in the infobox contradicts the date listed on her verified Twitter account. I understand these are minor points, but they could be symptoms of some backdoor direction at work. Delta13C (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment to closer - An important note is that I've now confirmed the 2 accounts involved with this article, Imdariusdurgan and Dega were in fact paid advertisers based from their contributions and stated involvements, so this itself is a concern and not one to be taken lightly or too unimportant, since the commenters, regardless of their arguments, have not countered the fact this is in fact a paid advertisement; a paid advertisement in which the paid contributors are still in fact active. SwisterTwister   talk  21:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that there are paid editors at work here. I had my suspicions, which I wrote in my comment and vote for a weak keep, but with a massive rewrite. Delta13C (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Even then, notice how this currently shown article is overbloated with named mentions and other PR puff; yet the controversy section is only a few sentences and has entirely unconvincing information about triviality. The fact this is still being defended by "But there sources" cannot be outweighed by the fact this this is advertising campaigning.


 * 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.