Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Black


 * 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. New evidence of notability on table, withdrawn nomination, snowball of keep votes. Dcoetzee 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Black

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Brief history: this article was speedy deleted under criterion A7, with claims that the subject is not notable because of WP:BLP1E. The article was then put on deletion review twice. The first time it remained deleted, but the second time recreation was allowed.

I'm nominating this article for deletion again because Rebecca Black is not notable when considered independently from her event [her music video]. The primary arguments for keeping the article are WP:MUSIC and the terms in WP:BLP1E that say the person involved with the event is notable if their part in the event was significant enough. While this is a reasonable argument considering she did sing the song and she has received quite a bit of news coverage, I believe there is a degree of separation between her and the video. Many of the articles covering Rebecca Black more often are focused on her video than just her. Though it is possible she may continue to release more songs and become notable in the future, we cannot predict what she will do andat the current point in time the video is what's notable, not her. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 15:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With the evidence that she will most likely be releasing more songs in the future and the overwhelming consensus to keep the article, I'm withdrawing the nomination for deletion. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The first DRV was speedy closed as assuming bad faith and for BLP concerns itself. It can safely be ignored.  lifebaka++ 15:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I thought, but I figured I'd list it there anyway in case anybody was curious. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 15:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

*Keep or redirect to Friday (Rebecca Black song). But in no way should it be deleted. Concerns of BLP1E are valid, but considering the amount of coverage she's had due to the avalanche of negativity, she passes the general notability guideline. If BLP1E trumps the GNG, then that's fine with me, but it should (very very obviously) be left as a redirect. Or the song should redirect here. Or both to an 'incident' article. But there should be something on the page. Ergo, no delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP Please show that she is not a notable person. -- from  Andyso  ( talk page ) 16:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not the way it works. Notability must be shown, not the other way around. LiteralKa (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep She is notable under WP:MUSIC due to having had a chart hit in the UK. Technohead1980 (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Friday (Rebecca Black song). This does seem to be a BLP1E violation, but more importantly, at this point in time there is virtually nothing to be said about her outside of the context of song. This is unsurprising - she's thirteen. She hasn't really done anything beyond that which can be covered. When I compared Rebecca Black to the song article, this became clear: the only thing mentioned in the Rebecca Black article that was not also covered in the song article was the name of her father. Everything we know about her seems to be in the context of the song and video, rather than about her in her own right. Perhaps she'll go on to do other things. But at the moment, keeping the article just means duplicating the content in order to have an article which starts by describing a 13 year old as having produced the worst song ever, and which can say little more, if only because there is almost nothing more to be said. - Bilby (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think redirecting would be a good idea. It would be bad for the article about the song to spend large amounts of space talking about Rebecca Black the person. Sadly, she may even go on to release further music. The article should be kept around. Jam1991 (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Changed to keep. The song has charted in the UK, which means she passes WP:MUSIC. Keep. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The argument presented that this is a "one event" situation is specious, this is not about a news event, it is a biography about an individual to be considered under MUSIC guidelines, which she surpasses. There are many "one hit wonders" in the world; that the video for this song has become an internet meme of sorts is irrelevant to the fact that it is a "hit" song by any reasonable definition of the same. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Notability is clearly established, and there is no valid reason for deletion presented.  BLP1E is one of the most poorly interpreted provisions in all of Wikipedia.  The original point of BLP1E was to discourage articles on people who were only incidentally caught up in news reports about events.  One notable product (a song) or one notable job ≠ one event.  I see absolutely no rational basis for stretching it to cover those who participate in or make creative works, which by their very nature (even on the internet) are lasting, and not an "event" in any reasonable sense of the word.  It is not BLP1THINGOFANYKIND.  "The love-hate fascination with Rebecca Black—the Ark Music Factory-pressed PlayDoh pop star [emphasis added] whose song “Friday” forces listeners to consider the ceaseless onward plodding of the days in more ways than one—is most likely making her wealthy, so there.  Forbes, America’s foremost chroniclers of how much more money people make than you, estimates that Black’s 30 million-and-growing hits on her viral video has earned her some $20,000, thanks to revenue earned from the YouTube Partner Agreement...But that’s not all: Black’s viral fame—which extends to satirical covers by death metal bands, faux-Bob Dylans, and even Conan O’Brien—has resulted in several hundred thousand downloads of the song on iTunes directly into people’s ironic playlists, with Black earning $.70 for every single one."  .  See also .  "[The] much-discussed singer [emphasis added] and calendar enthusiast Rebecca Black finally granted her first interview Thursday to The Daily Beast...Rebecca Black’s media tour continued this morning on Good Morning America, which picked up on the cyberbullying storyline."  Note also that the article is not titled "'Friday' singer speaks."  Again, there is absolutely no basis for defining "event" to include the creation and distribution of a single notable work.  And there is no policy-based (or other) reason for applying BLP1E to "protect" the privacy anyone who 1) purposefully distributed something to the public, and 2) purposefully engaged with national media on an ongoing basis.  postdlf (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a brief comment, part of the role of BLP1E was to ensure that balanced articles can be written - the difficulty with someone known for one event is that we can only cover their biography in terms of that single event, rather than providing it with balance. By focusing on the event, rather than the person, we don't need to be so concerned with trying to give a NPOV account of their life, as our focus moves to a smaller part of it. In this case, there is nothing that is said about Black that isn't said in the Friday article, because we only know about her in relation to the song. Therefore we can't write a balanced article about her life, so it makes some sense to focus on the context that we can write about her. If things happen that mean we can write about her outside fo that context, then having two articles will make more sense. - Bilby (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not "an event". And I count seven full sentences in the article that are about her, not the song per se.  I don't think you are understanding NPOV correctly in this context, and the principle you are trying to assert would eliminate any article about someone notable for doing or making one thing of any kind, such as a debut novelist, debut film directors, even many one-term members of Congress who don't distinguish themselves beyond getting elected.  Obviously what someone is notable for is going to dominate their article.  Take Anna Paquin, for example; at the time she starred in The Piano, it was the only thing that she was notable for because it was her debut film role.  So had Wikipedia existed in 1993, we should not have had an article about her, because everything would have focused on that Academy Award-winning role?  If producing and releasing a single song that brings you fame is an "event", why wouldn't starring in one film that brings you fame?  It simply isn't a constructive, workable, or meaningful standard.  postdlf (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is incredibly unlikely that the article will be deleted, and I was aware of this from the outset. But my point, I guess, is that those seven sentences you note in the article about her are also almost all in the article about the song. So from my perspective, currently we have an article about Rebecca Black, describing her only in terms of having recorded what some critics regard as the worst song ever (based on the lead), and we have an article about the song described as being what some critics regard as the worst song ever, performed by Rebecca Black. Both articles are predominatly about Rebecca Black and the song, and both articles cover the same material - although the song article actually provides better context than the article about her does. We can keep both, or keep only one. Either way the content would be kept. But one article focuses on the song (and yes, describing it as an event isn't quite right), putting the individual in the context of the song in much the same way as 1E encourages us to describe an event and place the indvidual within that context, while the other defines the person in the context of the song rather than giving a broader perspective, and this seems problematic when there is, at this point in time, no possibility of describing her in her own right.
 * At any rate I'll let it sit. I wanted to raise an alternative perspective given the way we have two articles covered the same material, but consensus will probably go elsewhere. :) - Bilby (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete- this star is 13 years of age and known for one song, not played on the radio but only on youtube. dont feed the cashcow that is her producer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.98.227.182 (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see the point in nominating an article about a singer for deletion immediately after she reaches the Billboard Hot 100 for the first time. Having a single on a national music chart is supposed to establish a performer as notable per WP:MUSICBIO. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is clearly something which should be noted for posterity if nothing else. A record of how these times worked. She's closing on 60 million views of the original video on Youtube, has been a guest on a ton of TV shows, the track is selling like mad, and she's donating the proceeds to help the victims of Japan. It has notoriety that a 13 year old girl coming out of nowhere and suddenly becoming known over most of the internet touched world. It should be recorded and documented regardless of whether or not she goes on to become a recording artist of chooses another way of life. If for no other reason than to give the future something to ponder. --IceHunter (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- sorry, but there isn't a shadow of a doubt on notability. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply when said person is working on a new single and album. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- Rebecca Black and her song, Friday have created tremendous buzz around the music community. Ms. Black has appeared on NBC's 'Today' and garnered the attention of Simon Cowell, Lady GaGa, Conan OBrien, Ryan Seacrest, and radio personalities from accross the country.  Ms. Black and Today have been 'trending topics' and Twitter and the video has received nearly 60,000,000 hits!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.69.173 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- It seems to me that she is definitely notable at present, if the buzz dies down and she doesn't do anything else notable then perhaps it would be common sense to support deletion per WP:BLP1E. КĐ ♥ 21:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - simply notable..for her hit music single and attention.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - multiple sources establish notability per WP:GNG. The subject is not a low-profile individual, so passes WP:BLP1E. The subject also passes criteria nos. 1 & 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. Thus, the article should be kept. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- She she is definitely notable at present time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiadiva2k (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - a merge or redirect will very possibly be proper after this has time to settle, but for now this should be kept (and certainly not deleted). Yaksar (let's chat) 23:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this song and Rebecca have gained tremendous popularity lately so I would keep this for the moment. It still certainly needs to be kept! JDOG555 (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well-known singer. ~EdGl  !  00:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge - Any notability is intrinsically related with the song. She seems more like a youtube sensation as opposed to a well-known musical act like some of those she's been compared to. Justin Beiber is known for being Justin Beiber. Rebecca Black is known for Friday - read; one song. By comparison, Tal Bachman is also only famous for one song. His article has about one sentence on that song. More than half of Rebecca Black's article is about Friday. I suggest deleting this article and taking any information over to Friday. Comics (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Antoine Dodson. Need I say more? Jam1991 (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Rebecca Black herself is known for her name and video/song and has notably, she has gained nearly 60 million views on youtube, gained over 1 million USD from downloads off iTunes, and has also been made an international joke on radio stations, comparing her to Justin Beiber is pointless due to Beiber started on youtube years ago, and Black started a month ago, therefore point is invalid, keep the page because it passes WP:MUSIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.65.162 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 20:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:MUSIC Basket of Puppies  05:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As has been pointed out she's notable according to the music guidelines, but more importantly she's notable right now. If we decide to delete things because we don't like them or aren't part of the phenomenon, when many other people seem to be interested in them and could want more information about them, then we defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. People will be wondering about her until all the hype dies down. This event is still ongoing, we can't judge the scope of her "contribution" to the world until the fervor over her is finished. MADaboutforests (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep She is famous and recognized, no need for deletion even if she is a one time wonder. --201.230.84.135 (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge Her notability comes only from one song, so until she comes up with something else better to merge/redirect to Friday (Rebecca Black song) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.105 (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, prefer Merge. Technically she passes WP:MUSICBIO, so she's entitled to have an article. But I don't think it's really necessary when most of it duplicates the information in Friday (Rebecca Black song). I would say either merge this article into the one on the song, or (my preference) merge the article on the song into this one. We don't need two articles on essentially the same subject. Robofish (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I note there are precedents for articles on people known for a single Internet meme - Tay Zonday, for instance. It seems a bit silly, but I guess these articles aren't doing much harm either. Robofish (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's too early to debate deletion of her individual biography, considering that she could be a signed artist with an album out in a month. She is a notable artist, with a song that has developed a following (good and bad). jwhouk 13:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhouk (talk • contribs)
 * Strong keep - She has received a huge ammount of media coverage, and it does not restrict to US America, it is global wide attention, she has recently hired a manager and a major label is interested on her since she has announced that she started to work on her debut album. It is clear enough that she, by herself, can stand up for her own article, because she is not known as Friday, her name preeceds it. There is enough notability to sustain the fact that this article should be kept. Eduemoni↑talk↓  14:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Token Delete even though this garbage is going to sail by on the backs of the KEEPITSNOTABLE Crew. This is not what an encyclopedia is for, to catalog every piece of irrelevant pop culture that makes the sheep put down their iPod for a moment to gawk. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Can I respectfully request that you read the guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Did I stutter? Yes, seriously.  Sometimes common sense should prevail over rules, that is why we have last-resort measures like WP:IAR in place.  I am far too much of a pessimist to expect anyone to actually decide this case that way though, hence the "token" in my !vote. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Way to take on a hostile tone with somebody who disagrees. From reading your user page, you come across to me as a genuinely unpleasant person. &mdash; Stimpytalk 22:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unpleasant when people don't consider that having a Wikipedia entry for a 13 yr old youtube "sensation" might not be such a good idea. I prefer unpleasant to unthinking. Tarc (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea (and one that follows policy), to have article on charting musical artistes that meet notability requirements. Their age and/or artistic merit of their output is irrelevant. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You completely missed the point. Good job. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please Tarc, behave yourself. Comments like the ones above from you are unnecessary to say the least and doesnt help your cause. As you are a user that often ask for more explanations you shouldnt react with hatered because someone ask you too for a better explanation.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, MUSICBIO clearly states 2.Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart... Rebecca Black passes MUSICBIO many times around on this point.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily meets GNG, not a single event, coverage has lasted for two weeks covering not just the video but the follow up music, and concert tour arrangements, and iTunes sales. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - an informal poll of my students and quick look at reliable online sources confirm she is well-known. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now there's someone with their notability priorities in order. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Community college students are a core constituency of Wikipedia, and it is perfectly legitimate to poll them as to what is notable, but not what is not notable. (2) I found, very easily and within minutes four reliable sources: Dail;y Mail, Blackbook Magazine, [Yahoo News, and Slate.com. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - She is now 'big' on youtube, many other 'youtube stars' have wikipedia pages about them. She has also charted in several country's, this should be reason enough. Also the amount of media coverage she has got is also a reason why it should be kept. 14:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CH7i5 (talk • contribs)


 * Ultra Super Speedy Strong Keep- Passes notability.--Hadomaru (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Honestly I'd rather not have an article on some 13 year old girl who is famous for singing a poorly written song, but she does technically pass MUSICBIO#2. Like Antoine Dodson (who I'm quite happy we have an article on), she passed it because of some odd circumstances but I don't think that justifies deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Passed notability. ℥nding · start 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Meh. I would really prefer that this be merged to Friday's article, both to help head off the inevitable vandalism and because, as is said above, virtually no content here isn't also present on the song's article.  However, recent sources (from the 25th on) seem to indicate that Ms. Black is planning to release more music.  Once this happens (and reliable sources write about it, but I doubt that will take long), she will need her own article.  It seems needlessly bureaucratic to merge or redirect this article now when it will be restored in just a few weeks or months.  Cheers, everyone.  lifebaka++ 22:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - She is famous all across the internet by now. I think it would be a good idea to keep this article and focus on Rebecca Black the person and use the other article to talk about the song itself. Jam1991 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As much as I don't agree with it, WP:MUSICBIO says that charting even a single song on any national chart is sufficient to establish notability. As such, the only justification for deleting would be Tarc's IAR, but IAR doesn't apply when there's a solid consensus in favor of something (as there appears to be here).  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability measures just that, how notable someone is, not the quality of their artistic merit. She's had significant broadsheet coverage eg --Confusedmiked (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm very sympathetic toward an IAR deletion here, but as Black herself has not shied away from the spotlight and seems to plan on releasing more music, I think deleting it would be pointless. Kansan (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. I fully expect her to be releasing more music (sadly) and I feel like this page will only come back if deleted.Jam1991 (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per WP:MUSIC, she's notable for having charted a single in multiple countries. And may God have mercy upon our souls.  Brett A. Thomas (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Passes notability. -- Dspradau   → talk   03:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and can we also ban knee-jerk deletion requests?--Metallurgist (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Song makes her notable. Portillo (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The 1,000,000+ dislikes on youtube alone should warrant a page on wikipedia... :p --Revil (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as I approve of the massive number of dislikes she's had for her video, unfortunately that's not a good enough reason to keep her Wikipedia article. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove Just because someone incoherently sang a song and got attention, most if not all negative attention, doesn't mean that she deserves an article. The fact that her song has an article is enough. --Quantrumbladum (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - WP:BLP1E does not apply, therefore the original reason for nomination is incorrect. Many of the other deletion votes appear to be '13 year old girls cannot be notable/the world is coming to an end because of a pop song/other such tragic nonsense'.--EchetusXe 06:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just like any other one hit wonder, don't make deletion votes just because you hate the song. 91.157.45.11 (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - If you remove Rebecca Black, then your need to remove other one hit wonder Youtube personalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikaelH57 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Not even a borderline case. Getting significant coverage in mainstream media. —Lowellian (reply) 11:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the "notability" case is pretty weak at the moment. Rebecca Black has clearly achieved national attention through her song, and if she's working on her debut album, the hooplah around her is unlikely to die down anytime soon. This nomination is both premature and based on the assumption that Rebecca Black is almost certain to fade away, which is not necessarily true. Ilov90210 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Its time to close this Afd as Keep. I find it strange that it is still up considering the certain Keep result.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * AFD's have a process. No one is going to die from the tag being on the page for a few more days. bd2412  T 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with Friday (Rebecca Black song) for now. If she continues in the public eye, it can be spun off again... AnonMoos (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep; preferably would merge with Friday (Rebecca Black song) to cut down on the duplication of content, but at the same time, she may meet NMUSIC. Sceptre (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A bona-fide pop star per WP:MUSIC; she should be treated the same as any other independent musician who makes the charts in four different countries. Chubbles (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow keep: no question, charting artist in multiple national charts, article getting well in excess of 50,000 hits every day. i wish people would think before initiating an afd like this, a quick talk page discussion would have discerned the uselessness of this.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  19:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now. It's the song rather than the artist which is notable just now. That might change in future, but until it does we don't need an article about her. As people will search for the term, however, then take them to the one thing for which she is noted. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps also keep the page protected to stop it being recreated in the event of a redirect or delete. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Obvious. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Smells like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable due to widespread coverage of surpassing Beiber as YouTube's most disliked, plus appearances on national TV shows and reliably sourced reports of an album in the works. bd2412  T 21:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTINHERITED. The song may be notable, but there's no reason to believe the singer will be. TJ Black (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is talk that she may be releasing a new song/album. Since this is likely, it seems like it would be in the best interest to keep the article active.Jam1991 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's meant to be a recommendation please format it as such. Thanks! TJ Black (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Just because the song she sang may not be good at all...lets not forget how popular it is. Hitting top charts? Keep. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect. This article is practically a copy of the article for her song. If she becomes notable for other reasons then the article can be recreated, but for now it is superfluous. Jowe189 (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Postdlf's well-presented case above. We have no way of knowing whether she'll turn out to be a one-hit wonder or the next Justin Bieber, but as things stand, she is someone whose  notability is based on a single notable work, rather than a single event. Media coverage of almost any musician, actor etc at such an early stage of their fame will focus on their single notable work, but that doesn't mean we have to wait and see what the future holds before allowing a Wikipedia article about them. As a slightly off-topic aside, I do think it's somewhat sad that the singer of the "world's worst song" seems to be getting most of the blame while the songwriters responsible are almost entirely ignored, and probably still able to walk down the street without getting laughed at. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is a charting artist, and as much as I cannot stand her song, it has reached the Billboard Hot 100, so is thus notable per WP:MUSIC. Tom Danson (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with postdlf. WP:BLP1E is incompatible with WP:NTEMP and, relevant to what postdlf was saying, WP:BLP1E should overtly prohibit its application to any of the professions on WP:BIO, such as WP:ARTISTs or WP:COMPOSERs (WP:CRIMINAL would seem to be the exception). Anarchangel (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this is to be removed, so is William Hung. --LouCypher (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this goes then Rachel Sweet, another one hit wonder 16 year old girl singer also needs to go. The pro-deleters seem to be caught up in the irrational tsunami of hatred being directed at this poor kid. 94.175.152.125 (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 20:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.209.241 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. With the recent announcement of her new album, which is sure to earn some notoriety of its own, I anticipate that BLP1E will not be an issue for long. If it is largely ignored than I would support a merge. Dcoetzee 13:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article meets WP:GNG. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  17:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Charted song, substantive coverage. Quality is not a criterion. Hekerui (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep — she has a currently charting single with a new single to be released next; passes WP:MUSIC. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. She has become a major celebrity now and is charting. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep and Speedy Close per the withdrawn nomination and the unlikely notion that this discussion will result in the article's death. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and Speedy Close. The nomination has been withdrawn, let's all get on with our lives here, people. 128.42.216.47 (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2011 (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.