Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Rosa


 * 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 as copyvio. Sr13 00:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mia Rosa

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Assertion of notability precludes a speedy, but otherwise non-notable for entertainers per WP:BIO and unsourced. DarkAudit 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per so many reasons. No RS. All OR. Reads like a MySpace. Promotional article. the_undertow talk  02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as above. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 03:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I really hate Mia Rose, but she's the #3 most-subscribed channel on YouTube, the most-subscribed musician and, not surprisingly, she's gotten a lot of press.
 * Mia Rose in Rolling Stone
 * Mia Rose in Evening Standard
 * Mia Rose in The Age
 * Mia Rose in The Sun
 * Mia Rose in BBC podcast.
 * Plus she's signed to Ryan Leslie's NextSelection label. The article just needs the sources added.  Unfortunately, we've got absolutely no grounds for deletion here. --JayHenry 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Should note that this article was evidently twice deleted in January at the location Mia Rose and deleted four times at Miaarose, but I still think we have to keep it this time. --JayHenry 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I keep finding more of a deletion trail Articles for deletion/Miaarose. But again, most of the press coverage came after this deletion. --JayHenry 03:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize it was a copyright violation. Well, delete then, and if anyone wants to use the sources above to restart it, that'd be great.  We probably ought to start something with the sources, if only to head off somebody else from starting something without sources.  And it should be at Mia Rose not Mia Rosa.  I'll do it eventually if nobody else does, though I'll admit I have little enthusiasm for this one. --JayHenry 20:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The quality of the article is very low and should be improved, but I agree with JayHenry. JdeJ 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that this is a shape up rather than a ship out scenario. Slavlin 03:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and NN. Being on YouTube does not make a person notable. meshach 04:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete probably passes WP:N, but should be ruthlessly purged as . Ohconfucius 08:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, looks like a real article could be written (at Mia Rose, please), but no more of these cut-and-paste copyvios. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This particular version looks unsalvageable, unless recreated as a stub to start from scratch, but someone else could always restart it with lots of reputable secondary sourced citations if they find them. Smee 10:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete as per Meshach, Smee and Ohconfucius. Lankiveil 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete this, and use all those sources that JayHenry tracked down to create a new oen at the proper location. Looks like the clock's started on her 15 minutes, and with major outlets reporting on her, she's probably going to meet guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Tony Fox. --GreenJoe 20:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Mia Rose is absolutely notable. The fact that the article is atrociously written is an incentive for editors to edit it with a meat-cleaver, not hustle for its deletion.--Mike18xx 07:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A copyright violation cannot be rewritten, unless it is thoroughly rewritten from scratch. Unless you are volunteering to do so, I'm not sure what you're voting to keep. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a copyvio -- Whpq 20:13, 18 May 2007 (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.