Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Jennifer Corday

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-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Jennifer Corday

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google offers no significant coverage in RS, or any other suggestion of passing any criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. — swpb^T 12:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: Does not appear to be notable. The only two sources in the article currently are interviews with Corday, and thus do not contribute to notability; I can't find any better sources either in google or news.google. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 08:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep - per sourcing, so yes there are few but established sources for this person. It is obvious that she is established. I am leaning towards keep here per the fact of sources that is claiming notable career. BabbaQ ( talk) 14:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep Adequate indicia of notability. I'm finding plenty of independent RS sources: Los Angeles Times, Autostraddle, [1], [2], [3], [4], (this one's a blog), [5]. One of the easier ones to find good material on. Montanabw^(talk) 06:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Huh, your google-fu is clearly better than mine. The Autostraddle and PNT TV articles are both interviews, so they're no good for notability. Some of the others look more promising, though. I must run now, but I'll have a look later and check that they hold up, and if so change my !vote... Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 09:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Right, I've had a look at the rest of the sources. SDGLN has another interview. pride.com hosts a video (I imagine; whatever the media is, it isn't working for me) of Corday presenting something. Neither of these seem to meet the "independent" criterion for the GNG. Then there are two webpages which simply announce that she is playing at some event ( GayTuscon reports that she is playing at Tuscon Pride, WIMN announces that she is playing at the National Association of Music Merchants trade show). An article about a music festival, which mentions that she is playing. I am unconvinced that any of these meet the criterion of "significant coverage". That leaves this LA Times piece.

Between the LA Times piece and the few other mentions, she might barely scrape through the GNG, but I think the case is borderline at best. Unless any more independent sources can be produced, though, I'm inclined to continue to think that notability isn't really achieved here... Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 16:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

A single major article (LA Times) combined with multiple other sources meets GNG. And if "borderline," the presumption is in favor of keeping. Montanabw^(talk) 05:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply

A single major article (LA Times) combined with multiple other sources meets GNG. Not by my reading of GNG. WP:GNG asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources", not "significant coverage in a reliable source and WP:ROUTINE mentions elsewhere". Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 10:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Confirmed—your reading of GNG is correct. But Montana knows that. — swpb^T 12:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply

And the more I think about it, the more I think that the LA Times piece is itself routine coverage. It's just an article about her playing in local school assemblies in a local paper... Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 14:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Still mulling the case overall but between the write-up about her activism and the separate full-length review, I don't think the LA Times coverage is merely routine. It only counts as one source ( WP:WHYN, fifth bullet point), but it's an instance of substantial coverage. Innisfree987 ( talk) 15:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Additionally. What Corday says about herself in the Autostraddle interview does not go toward notability, but the three paragraphs of secondary source commentary that precede the interview can, as can the fact of Autostraddle taking notice of her. Interviews#Notability And Autostraddle is a pretty major LGBT outlet, so that counts for something in my mind. Innisfree987 ( talk) 15:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep she has plenty of coverage and a full review from the LA Times. I've added some sources to the article (which is a mess.) Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 00:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess whether new sources support the notability claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: Once again, we have a situation where quality of article and notability are confused. The LA Times article alone is "significant" coverage, a thorough review and a good sign that someone has "arrived. Adding this to the many reviews in the LGBT press, we have "significant" coverage in multiple sources and as none are her own web site, nor does she control them, they are independent of the subject; to exclude sources from the LGBT press as somehow not independent is an erroneous assessment. Montanabw^(talk) 15:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
- Please identify for us all one source, other than the LA Times piece, that you believe is both reliable and significant in coverage. Don't assert that something exists if you can't prove it. No one is going to take your word for it. And no one said anything about quality, did they. — swpb^T 17:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  - WP:BASIC applies. The LA Times alone is significant, and the others are all reliable and independent. This is a performer in alternative music and with a following mostly from a minority (LGBT) community, so it takes a bit more work to pull together the sources, but they supplement the LA Times. I view the Pride video as significant converage. The Gay Tucson site is a reasonably strong niche, regional news outlet, and though that one is mostly a press release, it notes her awards and is outside her usual venue of Southern California. What I can add to the above is that she has won awards within the LGBT music community, including RightOut TV, and an OutMusic Award. Considering the specialty press, we have an activist artist who meets BASIC. Montanabw^(talk) 06:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC) reply
- I agree there's no reason at all to discount LGBT sources (!) and indeed they could help us cover a topic that can be hard to source. On the other hand I don't think the argument that she's "arrived" helps the case here. As far as I can tell, all the sources we can scrape up are years old; it's not an instance where an artist has broken through and we need to have an entry because we have reason to believe they're going to continue to be covered. To me it's a question of whether the sources we have from the time when she was getting notice suffice to write a balanced entry that's not just from one perspective (again, WP:WHYN). Innisfree987 ( talk) 15:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Weak delete' Not my field, but I notice that the only strong source is from her debut recording in 1997. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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.