Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (2nd nomination)

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. v/r - T P 01:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Rose (2nd nomination)

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

Recreated by a blocked/formerly blocked user ChristianandJericho (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of who created it, there's a case to be made for notability, is there not? There have been articles dedicated to her even though she's sort of a level below Rebecca Black.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete...? Yes, there's articles dedicated to her, but so do many other people who had their "fifteen minutes of fame" that did not get their Wikipedia article here. If one had taken a look at the statistics search, Jenna Rose basically rode on Rebecca Black's infamy, and already nothing is heard of her just when Rebecca Black news slowed down just a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.10 (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page was NOT recreated by a blocked or formerly blocked user... it was created by me. I have assisted Jenna and her family by posting relevant information received directly from the family on the Internet. Other contributors have since added relevant information to make this page more useful. I don't know who put up the original page that was already deleted, but my intention was to add to the already exiting page to add accurate and relevant information according to the terms of Wikipedia. If there is a question to the accuracy or relevance of this page, inquiries should be directed to Jenna Rose and her family. It is easy to find their contact information, or I can provide it. Furthermore, Jenna's popularity has grown based on her own talent and viral videos. As of the moment I am writing this, her YouTube video "My Jeans" has over 14 million views. Let's work together to keep this page in compliance, to keep it relevant, and to keep in useful. Scott 24.91.26.28 (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete a previous AfD was created, this page should not exist --ChristianandJericho (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because God said so? The previous AfD is not dispositive in cases like this of internet-driven "celebrities".--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 10:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some assorted points:
- The previous AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose, earlier this year. It was deleted, and unless the new article is substantially different from that article it should be handled at deletion review and not here.
- If the article was created by a blocked user, that's a deal-killer: we automatically delete such material even if it's good on the grounds of enforcing the block. Apparently this isn't the case, though, or claimed not to be the case, so this may be moot.
- This person is not only a minor but a very young minor (7th-grader apparently) and we are and should be very conservative about articles about such young persons out of BLP concerns. Even if the article is entirely laudatory now it might not always be so. If she retains an article and later something occurs that is not so great, there'll be an article to hang that info into. If she was clearly very notable then we'd have to have an article. But if she's only marginally notable, we want to be as conservative as possible here, I'm just saying.
- There's an article about her (here) in Newsday, a highly notable publication. There's also the Baldwin Herald (here), which I guess is a very small paper but on the other hand it's a fully developed feature-length article, just about this person. There's also coverage in Patch, which seems to be an online-only entity but apparently has a real editorial staff and so forth. They've even noted her existence in France, but that's also just a website (I don't know how notable it is). Whether this meets the WP:GNG requirement of "significant coverage" I don't know. Probably. Meeting the GNG doesn not guarantee inclusion, though.
- Is 14 million YouTube hits a lot or a little? Can anybody answer this? If it's one of the ten highest total ever achieved, that'd mean a lot more than if its just something that happens to hundreds of videos a year. Also the 14 million claim is not ref'd.
- I'm voting delete on the basis of marginal entity who is a very young minor, besides which it was already deleted. Four people (including the nominator) voted Delete there, one suggested a redirect, and nobody with standing wanted to keep the article. I suggest the person closing this discussion add the weight of their numbers and arguments when considering the outcome. Herostratus (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (keep it): The Page is accurate, informative, and useful... we can only wonder why the delete comments are being made. InternetConcepts (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Basically I'm on the other side of the line as Herostratus, I think sources cross the line into notability. I don't see advantage to deletion, because this is the kind of thing people will be googling in years hence, "do you remember that 'my jeans' girl..."--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage found confirms she is notable. Instead of just talking about her for her first song, they even meniton her later for her next one [1]. Dream Focus 04:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Coverage is not broad enough to warrant overturning the consensus established at the first AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:47, 13 September 2011 (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.