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 TNT delete. Explanation at bottom. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manika (singer)[edit]

Manika (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Fails notability guidelines on a massive scale. Almost every source here comes from press releases, fan sites, unreliable sources, the subject's social media, etc. This borders on a press release. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget to mention that the sources for the article (like Pollstar) are interviews where the subject gives false information. See here for details where I actually fact checked her claims:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oshwah#Manika_page

I keep trying to edit the article to remove all the fake "facts" and keep it neutral as possible, but the article keeps being reverted to the original so if deletion is necessary, so be it. Can someone lock the article at least? AyanP (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)AyanP[reply]

• Keep The article certainly needs lots of work, but that's not a reason for deletion. She appears to meet WP:MUSIC criterion #2 as she's charted: e.g. Billboard chart result. Bondegezou (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What chart is that? And charting is not automatic grounds for a subject to receive an article. Significant coverage in multiple reliable publications is the basic requirement for any Wikipedia topic. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The various notability guidelines, like WP:MUSIC, are generally adhered to. To quote WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right"

"Just Can't Let You Go" made #21 on Billboard's singles sales chart (that's as opposed to their main singles chart that combines sales and airplay). The link I gave earlier showing #86, I think that's for the main singles chart. Bondegezou (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So, the article was a mess. I and others have tried to clean it up. Thanks especially to AyanP. But I think what's left satisfies notability criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MUSICBIO also says that a subject only may be suitable for inclusion if it meets a guideline there. The chart you've provided is for physical single sales (a virtually nonexistent market in America at the moment), only a component of the main US chart. It did not chart at #86 on the Hot 100 (America's primary music chart), by the way; it does not show in her chart history on Billboard's website. And the main issue here is that the sourcing is terrible. Nearly all of the sources appear unreliable aside from Seventeen magazine (and that isn't the strongest of sources). So seriously consider if we really need to keep an article on a non-noteworthy singer just because she ranked on a small component chart. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are not any reliable sources, none. Interviews are a form of self-sourcing, when these are swept away, all that's left is a promotional release.Jacona (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not particularly bothered whether this article survives AfD or not -- you can change my "keep" to a "weak keep". It is a borderline case (and I find myself more and more a deletionist these days!), but to address a couple of points in the above... The singles sales chart I quoted is all sales as far as I understand, not just physical sales. But you're right about Billboard here not showing anything charting for Manika in the regular chart (I had misunderstood the link I gave above). (Billboard also has a biography for her.) Most material on some new singer is going to be in the form of interviews. If sufficient significant sources want to interview someone, that shows notability. Material written by the journalist at the beginning of an interview is not self-sourced. This article does have problems with sourcing and undue claims, but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point in cleaning up....nothing. Which is what we have here. Zero reliable sources. This is not a notable subject. Jacona (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Billboard's Singles Sales chart is just physical sales and does not include digital sales. There's a separate chart for digital sales and the Hot 100 (the actual main singles chart) combines everything with radio and streaming. The issue here is that single sales are virtually non-existent. I also searched for retailers that carry Manika's physical singles and nothing showed up. Something's fishy here...

Thank you for that correction. Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm going with delete now too. That same person is hijacking the page again. (S)he's even claiming that Manika has "relevance" in pop culture and her social media followers are real (they're not). AyanP (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)AyanP[reply]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4556714/ Global Beauty Masters on Discover  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2108455/?ref_=nm_flmg_slf_1

• Comment. Multiple keep votes struck. IP 68.224.55.160 voted 4 times in one edit. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing reliable about this article.

1) The Billboard sub-chart is for physical singles sales, which barely even exist. I searched online for any retailers that carry physical singles of any Manika song and none do. I'm wondering where these physical sales came from, especially considering there is no market for it and no retailers carry Manika's physical singles. Either way, not showing any "relevance in pop culture" like the person who keeps hijacking the article claims.

2) Her fan base is NOT real. If you click on the profiles of the people who respond to her on Instagram, Twitter, Youtube and Facebook, you can tell that they're all fake profiles. Click on the usernames and you'll notice that they all have 6-7 LQ uploads without any pictures of themselves on Instagram:

https://instagram.com/p/55zUWCn46F/

Or on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/ManikaOfficial/status/629038942138990592

3) "Wamaframa Records" isn't even a real record label. The new reference link you added for the label goes to iTunes. That doesn't make "Wamaframa" a legitimate record label. Anyone can upload things on iTunes. And again, it's not: http://www.wamaframa.com/

4) "Asian Spanish" is not an ethnicity. This is an encyclopedia article, not a PR release to create some ambiguous ethnicity to appeal to people.

5) Nothing that this person keeps adding is notable at all. The most notable thing is opening for One Direction years ago when they were a new band and collaborating with Tyga. AyanP (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)AyanP[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Lyle, Michael (2011-11-29). "Henderson teen hopes to become a pop star". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-09-05. Retrieved 2015-09-05.
  2. Przybys, John (2011-12-08). "Las Vegas-born singer Manika takes on two holiday classics". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-09-05. Retrieved 2015-09-05.
  3. Romero, Angie (2011-05-16). "Introducing Manika". Latina. Archived from the original on 2015-09-05. Retrieved 2015-09-05.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Manika to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent sources" require no attachment to the subject and no COI. Interviews with the subject that goose her popularity and musical abilities to attract readers don't really qualify. WP:SPIP speaks on self-promotion and says: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Chase (talk | contributions) 00:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, two of those publications are based in the subject's hometown. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "incentive, promotion, or other influence" for either the Las Vegas Review-Journal or Latina to cover her. They both have "no attachment to the subject and no COI". It is correct that Las Vegas Review-Journal is based in her hometown. But Latina is not based in her hometown and has a national circulation of 150,000 and a readership of over 600,000 (source: http://www.latinastyle.com/mediakit.pdf^WebCite). Significant coverage in Latina makes her have national notability, not merely local notability.

Cunard (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publicist-arranged interviews are not independent. There's a symbiotic nature of "we promote our artist and you get a good feature story." I'm curious as to where the reliable sources are that comment on her music without any involvement from her. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that these are publicist-arranged interviews. Cunard (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most coverage of most musicians consists of interviews with the subject. And most of those interviews will be arranged because the musicians has something to promote. It makes no sense to strike every such interview as not being reliable -- we'd lose half the musician articles on Wikipedia. There are exceedingly few articles that would meet Chase's strict interpretation. (Would you excise every comment from a review given most reviews are done because the record company sent out a free copy?) The likes of the Las Vegas Review-Journal or Latina are reputable publications that are making an editorial choice that this person is of sufficient interest to be worth covering by them. Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles about notable musicians that would meet the criteria. There's obviously nothing wrong with using interviews, reviews, and other such pieces that are arranged by the artist's marketing team, but when the vast majority of the subject's coverage in major publications is a result of such PR planting, that should raise major red flags. Wikipedia isn't supposed to cover a small record label's up-and-coming act to serve as promotion for them. And there is a section in the notability guideline devoted specifically to self-promotion in reliable sources. Chase (talk | contributions) 14:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously nothing wrong with using interviews, reviews, and other such pieces that are arranged by the artist's marketing team, but when the vast majority of the subject's coverage in major publications is a result of such PR planting, that should raise major red flags. – this is yet another unsupported accusation that the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Latina articles are "PR planting". Such an unsupported claim could be made about any article written about an artist. Please provide evidence for these claims or stop making them. Cunard (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To quote SPIP: The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself ... have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. An interview with the subject, padding for the publications, is absolutely incentive to cover her. Surely if this artist were truly notable, readers would be so interested in her that journalists would write articles without her participation. And for the record, my claims could not be made about any artist who meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if this artist were truly notable, readers would be so interested in her that journalists would write articles without her participation – a good journalist always attempts to interview the article's subject. These good journalists from Las Vegas Review-Journal and Latina spoke with her for their pieces because attempting to speak with article subjects is their job.

That the journalists spoke with her does not make them suddenly non-independent.

Is an article in The New York Times no longer usable as a source to establish notability for a subject if their journalist spoke with that subject? No.

Cunard (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP More than Sufficient Notability/3rd Party Sources/ Media Coverage

First of all as user IP 68.224.55.160 said and proves she meets SIX of the Notability requirements when ONLY ONE IS NEEDED

Secondly for those who are all falsely saying Manika does not sufficient 3rd party sources/media coverage, etc. Here are 202 3rd party sources/articles/media coverage I found just by googling her name:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.64.17 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC) — 108.210.64.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - Can't find enough substantial coverage on the search engines to see how this individual meets notability criteria. Press releases and interviews (which are pretty much on the same level, both being primary sources), don't establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Las Vegas Review-Journal and Latina articles are not "press releases and interviews". These two reputable sources provide "substantial coverage" about the subject. They are independent in that they have no affiliation with the subject. Cunard (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. The Latina and Review-Journal pieces are both based on interviews with the subject. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Based on" is the key phrase. They include quotes from the subject but are not only interviews in the format of:

  Publication: [question]

  Manika: [response]

  Publication: [question]

  Manika: [answer]

  The former can be used to establish notability because most of the content is from the independent publication. The latter cannot because most of the content is from the subject. Cunard (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've asked the community to review the guideline's interpretation at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Does an independent publication become no longer independent because the journalist spoke with the subject?. Cunard (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) An article based on an interview and a Q&A are the same thing. The information is coming from the exact same source. And to answer your point above, which I actually already did, there's a difference between using interviews to source an article about a notable artist, and basing an article about a non-notable singer around 2-3 interviews with reliable publications, with no other sources to flesh the article out except for press releases, social media, IMDb, blogs, etc. I'm seriously starting to wonder if you're trolling. In any case, this will be my final reply to you here because I've made my point. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles says a subject is notable if she:

  Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

  Coverage in Las Vegas Review-Journal and Latina meet that criteria.

  From Wikipedia:Third-party sources (which is linked to from Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles):

  A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.

  Since the only involvement the publications have with Manika is "in their capacity as a reporter", they remain independent despite having interviewed her.

  Cunard (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Manika has also been covered in Vents Magazine in addition to Las Vegas Review-Journal and Latina.

  June 2013 article: http://manika-music.com/news/manika-featured-in-vents-magazine/^{WebCite and WebCite}

  February 2015 article: http://manika-music.com/news/manika-featured-in-vents-magazine-2/^{WebCite and WebCite}.

  Cunard (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are too many primary and self published sources, but here are some sources that could further establish notability.

• A biography published by Rovi, reprinted on Billboard Magazine[1]
• Billboard Magazine feature video [2]
• Billboard Magazine Single chart #88 [3] (Passes WP:MUSBIO #3
• Time Magazine (Time for Kids) interview [4]
• Both albums on AllMusic. [5] [6]
• Support for radio spins on BillboardBiz.[7] (supports WP:MUSBIO #11)
• Feature article on Latina, site appears to be RS and also mentions her book.[8]
• The Exciting Adventures of Boo Ten Tender Lessons Author: Manika ISBN 9780911752991
• I see no problem with the Las Vegas Review Journal Review feature. [9]

In this case, the interviews are not self-published, reading the complete footnote[10] in WP:MUSBIO #1, clearly states that, "The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist, or their works." So, the non-self published interviews do go to WP:MUSBIO #1. The article needs work, but that is WP:ATD "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." 009o9 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent research, 009o9! http://www.billboard.com/artist/1496571/manika/biography from Matt Collar of Rovi is a very strong source and an excellent find. Cunard (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Huffington Post Celebrity Collector: MANIKA - Reyne Haines009o9 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Huffington Post is another strong source that provides several paragraphs of coverage about her before the question-and-answer with her.

  Two of the strongest sources you found:

  1. Collar, Matt (2015). "Manika – Biography". Rovi. Archived from the original on 2015-09-07. Retrieved 2015-09-07 – via Billboard.
  2. Haines, Reyne (2012-04-10). "Celebrity Collector: Manika". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-09-07. Retrieved 2015-09-07.
  These two sources, in conjunction with the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Latina articles, clearly establish that she passes Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP

Manika is definitely notable, internationally renowned blogger PEREZ HILTON Perez Hilton even writes about her. This is a 3rd party source reliable source and international media coverage… NOT an interview. Plus she now has a collab with the extremely notable Tyga Tyga as well. http://perezhilton.com/2015-06-18-manika-byobugatti 166.170.47.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.47.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Being posted on Perez Hilton's blog is not an indicator of notability. Perez is a member of pop music website ATRL and he saw this thread posted about "B.Y.O.Bugatti" by a member mocking it and Manika's fake social media followers: http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.php?t=801809 AyanP (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)AyanP[reply]

• Keep - Easily passes both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC and indicated by the sources by 009o9, Cunard and Bondegezou. The nom seems to take the presence of an article on this young woman personally. Strange. The carpet tagging of the article by the nom is difficult to see as a good faith effort. --Oakshade (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Oakshade for reviewing the sources. I agree that the carpet tagging of the article is "difficult to see as a good faith effort". By "carpet tagging", I think you mean to link to Wikipedia:Tag bombing or Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Over-tagging instead of Wikipedia:Citation overkill? Cunard (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Tag bombing is a better link to describe the nom's actions in the article and I changed it. Thanks!--Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here is "taking the presence of this article personally" except for all these randoms (clearly Manika and her manager father) who keep editing the article and removing Bondegezou's great edits. Most of us don't actually have a problem keeping the article. In fact, I've spent the past month trying to edit the article to make it neutral and have reputable info. The problem is that the "facts" being edited into are NOT reliable. For an example, the current edit claims "I Might Go Lesbian" is on Top 40 radio. It is NOT. Check AllAccess and Mediabase and the song has zero adds and no impact date. Before you guys came, the article was a disaster and full of false information from her interviews. I had to keep editing the article multiple times to clean it up and make it neutral as possible. Others noticed and that's how the pending deletion arose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oshwah#Manika_page AyanP (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)AyanP[reply]

I don't know who tagged the article for notability, but they messed with a someone who has 3 million FaceBook followers.[11] No doubt that there is going to be a lot of drive-by's dropping off non RS sources when their artist's article is tagged for notability. Perhaps the best thing to do now is to take the best copy, sandbox it, fix the references and then paste it over what is now in the mainspace? From there we can revert drive-by's and get tough on the the 3 revert rule. 009o9 (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly problems with the article. The way to deal with those problems is not to delete the article, but to work on making the article better. We must also remember to assume good faith about the motives of other editors: they may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's practices, but that does not mean their actions are malicious. Semi-protection from IP editors can be requested and may be a good way forward. Bondegezou (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: And, honestly, a slap from the Frozen Trout of Seafood Justice. Since when do interviews not count as "substantive coverage" just because they're interviews? That's a peculiar -- and personal -- interpretation of the GNG that is nowhere found in Wikipedia guidelines or policy. Whether she also passes MUSICBIO, the solidity (or not) of her fanbase, the importance of her label, or how many angry SPAs may or may not descend on us, all these are irrelevant. GNG pass, period, end of statement. Ravenswing 11:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She meets the GNG as stated by Ravenswing here. The article is a complete mess, and needs to be weeded of the chaff and fan page nonsense, but that does not mean she's not-notable for inclusion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup, though attempting to do so is making my head hurt. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is really the sort of article that our notability criteria should exclude; as a minor flash-in-the-pan popstar. Nonetheless, the current guidelines are the current guidelines, and as Cunard shows she meets them. Special thanks to User:Ritchie333 for his work in cleaning a lot of the promotional cruft out of the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Oh, I agree with you. I have a dislike of people choosing AfD as the venue to debate the merits of WP:V, the GNG or the various SNGs. If the naysayers want to change those policies, their talk pages are where the argument needs to be taken. Ravenswing 17:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Agree that the article is a mess but the chart positions do suggest some degree of notability -RoseL2P (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleting. I came here following a request for help at WP:AN, and I can easily understand why the request was made: everything here is a huge mess. With that in mind, I'm closing this as a TNT delete. The majority of voters supported keeping, and I'm generally discounting the delete voters because the keep voters (who came later) presented evidence of sourcing that the earlier delete voters said didn't exist. However, the keep voters' position is well summed up by Ritchie333's comment, "cleanup, though attempting to do so is making my head hurt". In other words, the page is so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over. While I'm going to delete the page, you could take it to WP:REFUND and ask for userfication (be sure to cite my closing comment, since AFD'd pages normally won't be restored there), or I will restore it to userspace at anyone's request. Please don't do this, however, unless you want to have the citations: you need to rewrite the article from scratch. And finally, if anyone tags the page for G4 speedy deletion, remind them that the criterion's for reposts of deleted content, not for new pages on the same topic, especially when the AFD is closed with a suggestion to write a new page. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2015 (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.