Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Spielberg


 * 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   no consensus. Opinions remain divided about whether or not the subject meets our inclusion guidelines.  Sandstein  10:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Robin Spielberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominated by User:69.142.93.67 with no deletion rationale specified. --Michig (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with deletion. Subject is not notable. There are tens of thousands of working musicians around the country. They can't all have Wikipedia pages.Balloftwine (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Incomplete nomination from an anonymous editor who gutted the article before nominating. No rationale for deletion provided. The subject has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Here's a few examples:, , , , , , - there are plenty more. --Michig (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. See also this edit from User:Balloftwine. --Michig (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Never heard of this musician, but that's okay. That's what we have encyclopaedias for. Looking at the sources and the discography stretching back twenty years, the subject is clearly notable. Why wasn't this raised on the article talk page first? --Pete (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Michig (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO through non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which can be easily seen from the references in the article. — sparklism hey! 13:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - A bit too dependent on local news sources but there are enough of them and they are non-trivial, while an entry at AllMusic helps the case. Also the nominator may not have initiated this process properly. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 20:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 12.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 04:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I put this on the talk page first then realized there was an AfD page. Previous comment: This may be due to my lack of knowledge of the music biz, but I'm troubled by the article's discussion of her cd sales. She's released over a dozen records with sales in the hundreds thousands but SoundScan only reports 1800 for the early ones? And since 2000 she has been with the label that she started herself. This does not seem to meet notability. Her article rests on her international touring which is already vague and weak and her discography and commercial success which seems weak to me. The rest is about her early stage activities and her only book which is a memoir published this year. B Hastings (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Being on their own label in no way makes an artist non-notable. As the article makes clear, the bulk of those sales (which were during the first few years of her music career) were in outlets not recorded by SoundScan. You can also look at the cited sources for more detail. Notability here is largely based on WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC criterion 1, which the subject quite easily meets. The rest is simply sourced detail about the subject - we don't only include facts which have a bearing on meeting notability guidelines. --Michig (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right about an artist being on their on label disqualifying from notability; that is not automatic. What I was more concerned with was the record sales. The article (and the notability of the subject) rests on commercial success. Crit 1 of WP:NMUSIC requires multiple, non-trivial, reliable and independent sources. The 160K - 200K record sales in the cited article was quoted from the president of the subject's label. That fact is not independent or reliable. The other source dealing with the commercial success of the subject is mostly focused on the fundraising or charitable nature of the performance. If nothing else, I hope that we can come to the consensus that the article needs to be edited to reflect the genre-specifc or specialty work of the subject (new age). B Hastings (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is filled with strange name-dropping and sources that don't seem to have anything to do with the name (like William Macy) being dropped. I might vote keep with SUBSTANTIAL edits to remove the blatant puffery but every time I try to delete that I get blocked.  Does anyone agree there's way too much self-promotion going on? Real musicians do not do this.  There is no real criticism on her page, just puffery.  No music criticism. Balloftwine (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. If you think the article is unbalanced, the way forward is not to delete every positive mention and then call for the article to be deleted entirely! --Pete (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is what I was doing. I would like to continue doing that.  Unbalanced is the wrong word.  Advertising and puffery are the right words.  Fatpedro (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Comment. This person may be notable, but that question is heavily obscured by the problematic content: anon SPA editing (which BTW appears to be from an IP address in the same small town in which the subject currently lives), guarding/restoring promotional text, wall of stats that read like WP:RESUME, name dropping and other un-encyclopedic content, lots of WP:OR, etc., as well as the article's tug-of-war history among interested editors. It would be good if the proponents could step-back a little and allow the article to be reduced to a shorter, strictly encyclopedic description of the subject that is well-sourced. A much more reasonable notability debate could then be had. Agricola44 (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete Fails Notability standard WP:Music. No verifiable existence of the record label.  No verifiable musical training.  No verifiable serious article on musical quality.  Coverage is largely trivial, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.  Has not met standard of being a prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.  Fails Wikipedia: Composers.  Fails WP:NSONGCritic11 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is padded with insubstantial details and odd references that make it hard to establish notability. I can imagine a case for keeping, but at this point that's not very clear. Scholiasticathanasy (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wow, this discussion is really attracting a lot of editors who have previously had little involvement at AfD, who are all !voting delete. Or is it actually a smaller number of editors editing under multiple names? --Michig (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by relister: I have relisted this because, as pointed out above, the level of puffery in the article made it difficult to decide on the question of notability. User is attempting a cleanup (see note on article talk page) by " discarding all unsupported text and all text supported only by citations from websites, local news outlets that seem to announce performance dates, and sources with only a trivial reference to Spielberg." Relisting will give time for the revised article to be considered: I suggest that those who have already !voted revisit it and decide whether it changes their opinions. JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I took time off for the US Thanksgiving holidays (as I imagine many did). I will try to finish cleanup over the next few days so that a more objective assessment can be made. I want to emphasize that I see my job here strictly as cleanup. I will not weigh-in here with an opinion on notability. ADDENDUM: SEE MY !VOTE BELOW. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC).
 * I am now experiencing the same phenomenon of interested editors guarding this article, e.g. this a revert of deleting a concert announcement in a local, small town newspaper. I do not think this article can get a fair evaluation for the notability of the subject until these eds step away and allow disinterested parties (who will not render a !vote) to remove the WP:PUFF. What to do now? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC).
 * It supports our statement that she began piano training at the age of seven. I notice that you also deleted a mention in the New York Times. if the NYT, Washington Post and so on are talking about the subject, I suggest that that is an indication of notability, and it is disingenuous to remove these sources and then complain that the subject is not notable! --Pete (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're assertion is incorrect. There are few NYT's in the article. The one I deleted by Gussow had only the trivial mention "...and a background score by Robin Spielberg that finds plangency...", suggesting you're either mechanically guarding the article without bothering to read/eval the individual sources or you're not familiar with the guidelines that define what constitutes acceptable WP:RS. The one by Zeff discusses Spielberg in a substantive way and will remain. Please appreciate this difference. Will you and the other proponents now step back and let a so-far-disinterested editor try to redact the WP:PUFF? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC).
 * The mention in the NYT is neither a trivial mention in the WP sense of the word, nor puffery likewise. The subject looks to be widely notable and I suggest that you refrain from deleting useful sources while this discussion is underway. Perhaps you could raise your concerns on the article talk page and we can discuss them there? --Pete (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The mention is most certainly trivial by the very definition in WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Given the history that I've read and what I've now experienced myself, it is now sufficiently clear to me that this article is being guarded. The only remedy is to start over and I will !vote as such. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC).
 * WP:TRIVIALMENTION is for cases where a single sentence in a single source is being used to establish notability. That is not the case here, as notability is established through multiple sources. And, as notability is clearly established in many good sources, why are we having this discussion at all? Cheers. --Pete (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And may I ask why you are using bullet points to continue discussion? WP:INDENT serves well enough for the rest of us. --Pete (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Throwing around WP:OWN just because someone disagrees with and reverts one of your edits has no justification. If you check the article history I restored the text of the article that had been deleted (which was pretty much ALL the content of the article) and was then in the process of sourcing what could be sourced and removing what couldn't or didn't add to the article. I was half way through this when other editor(s) started deleted chunks of the article without justification. I stopped while an investigation into this editing/!voting was carried out, and that is still ongoing. The article still needs work, but let's get this AfD out of the way first. The subject clearly satisfies WP:GNG if nothing else. Don't confuse a sourced statement with a claim of notability - information has to be reliably sourced (but the source doesn't have to constitute significant coverage), but it isn't necessary for every statement to contribute to notability, and relevant sourced content is not 'puff'. --Michig (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of you continue to dance around the big picture of this article, which is the following: There are numerous statements of minutiae that are designed to puff-up the subject and these are all cited with sources that are nothing more than trivial mentions, web pages, and such. We look no further than what was just restored "...directed by William H. Macy and adapted by David Mamet". There is no need to drop these names, as they are related to the play, not to Spielberg directly. In other words, this statement wants Spielberg to WP:INHERIT from Macy, et al. There are also numerous unsourced statements, "The Poet and the Rent and The Revenge of the Space Pandas, two children's plays by David Mamet" – name-dropping (puff) again...ad nauseam. These are not encyclopedic contents related to Spielberg, not to mention that sourcing rules are particularly strict for BLPs. Now, here is the problem. The article is at AfD and any newcomer (such as I was) cannot easily wade through all of this WP:PUFF, by which I mean all the minutiae unsourced or sourced with trivial mentions, to get to only those text and sources that are meaningfully related to assessing notability. Your systematic reverts are obstructing this process and, in my experience, the only realistic option in such cases is WP:NUKEANDPAVE, which I advised below. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Let's get this AfD out of the way first. Please. --Pete (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, there isn't a basis for an objective AfD until puff is out – horse before cart and all that. Anyhow, I've weighed-in below. Agricola44 (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC).


 * See also long note from the article subject at Talk:Robin Spielberg. JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. A lot of the sources are routine local press coverage (although there's certainly a grey area between "X is playing Y" which doesn't count and publications using an event as a peg for a larger article which does count), but there is a sizeable article from the New York Times and she's also been reviewed in the Washington Post as well as multiple reviews on AllMusic, and her self-published book was reviewed in Kirkus. Plus there's the 1995 Billboard article, which she's not the primary subject of, but it still provides significant coverage, so that counts too for WP:GNG. And local press coverage, which counts for less, but cumulatively it all adds up to meeting WP:GNG. And the article does need editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. In my opinion, the article cannot be assessed for notability until the enormous WP:PUFF is redacted. It is clear that any effort in this direction is met by a wall of organized opposition devoted to guarding the article. It appears the only solution is WP:NUKEANDPAVE. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2013 (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.