Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Rose


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mia Rose

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

Musician which may not meet WP:MUSIC, news articles about her are trivial and she hasn't has had a charted single or album on any national music chart. Holkingers (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to List of YouTube celebrities. Don't see any points of WP:MUSICBIO fulfilled. Hekerui (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep What about all the citations to reliable sources? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Rolling Stone blog post is a commentary on internet marketing and info about Rose is trivial. This is true for the other sources (they make similar points about independent music). Rose has not produced notable work and the coverage with her is about marketing. She could well be notable in the future, but right now I don't see criteria fulfilled. Hekerui (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whoa, that is a snap judgment, and it is not correct. The reference to the Sun gives a brief article but it's legit; the article from The Age is absolutely legit (pretty obviously so); and the Rolling Stone reference leads not to just any blog--Elizabeth Goodman is, as far as I can tell, a staff writer for the magazine, and the article is long enough. So, there is independent coverage, at least two of those are not trivial and they certainly are independent--she passes WP:N. This "Child of Midnight" person seems, possibly by complete chance, to have hit the mark and found the bacon in the pigsty that is sometimes AfD. ;) 207.157.121.50 (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt the articles are genuine but they are simply of the format "Person X" is hoping to make it big, which I considered trivial. Holkingers (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read the articles more carefully. The article in the age opens with, if you'll pardon the long quote to establish non-triviality, "THE new indie dream is sexy and free. This week her name is Mia Rose. She was nobody when she opened her YouTube account in late December. Within three weeks she had more than 200,000 fans making her the "Most Subscribed (YouTube) Musician of all Time". Even Rolling Stone knows her name. Actually, the American music magazine calls her "a disturbingly well-packaged 18-year-old singer-songwriter", which suggests they also know her game.  The pretty acoustic balladeer is the latest overnight sensation bridging the credibility gap between the independent bedroom and the Big Time. She seems too good to be true with her dark, silky hair tumbling over her guitar, her girl-next-door spark and her TV Idol voice (http://youtube.com/user/miaarose).  That's because she was most likely signed, coached and groomed by management and marketing experts well before posting her latest videos about (surprise!) flying around the world negotiating with record companies.  Rose is one of the new generation of faux internet indies, acts that use social networking sites such as MySpace and YouTube to fabricate a groundswell of popular support as part of a carefully orchestrated debutante publicity campaign."  All this starts a 2000-word article on the phenomenon of virtual fame, or YouTube fame, or whatever you want to call it. Maybe you think the coverage is trivial, but I am sure (and hopeful) that other editors who will weigh in here, and the closing admin, will think differently. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC) (sitting at my own desk now)
 * So what you are saying is she is notable for being an example of a "faux internet indie" which is someone that has an choreographed internet campaign to hype them. It's a pity she hasn't had commercial success. Maybe the article should make this clearer that that is the reason for her inclusion. Holkingers (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying she is notable because she passes WP:N. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm with Hekerui, I see no notability here.  She's just somebody who's gotten fairly well known on Youtube. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the articles on Rolling Stone and The Age are significant coverage, which is enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines, if the GNG is met, there is no need to pass WP:MUSICBIO. For those who do not consider the articles to be significant coverage WP:ENTERTAINER includes people with:
 * a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" --kelapstick (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 200,000 registered fans (the Most Subscribed (YouTube) Musician of all Time) is enough for me.--kelapstick (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Coverage adequate for notability purposes.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Kelapstick regarding the large fan base. No prejudice should be allowed against YouTube compared to traditional networks.  The number of people subscribing is normally much smaller than the number of viewers.  Drawn Some (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- kelapstick (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- kelapstick (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting an important criteris of WP:ENTERTAINER... the cult following and fan base... one which leads to repeated coverage in reliable sources. Its a lock per guideline, as guideline does not quailfy nor limit what constitutes a fanbase or cult following. Large is large. Rewrite the guideline if you wish, but she meets it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage adequate, fan base/cult status exists, and she was one of the first people who got 'fairly well known on YouTube' and prompted significant debate between the YouTube purists (i.e. corporate sponsorship sucks, it's about the community) and YouTube brand builders (i.e. corporate sponsorship isn't actually the work of the devil and it's okay to promote yourself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.176.12 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the sources provided demonstrate that she meets the notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2009 (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.