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 delete and redirect to Redemption Paws. This is complicated. There is definitely some nonsense happening, which is why I will protect the redirect. However the consensus appears clear that Redemption Paws is notable, and there has been no case made why a redirect should not exist since Simone is tied to the organization. Star Mississippi 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Nicole Simone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted back in 2021, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone. Archive of that version can be found here. I think this version differs substantially enough from the previous that it is ineligible for a speedy deletion. As per the previous 2021 deletion, I don't think she's notable as a musician. As noted in Willondon's table in the last AfD: Most of the sources are either A: Only tangentially about the subject, B: in self published blogs, or C: Appear to be pay-for-play publications. Redemption Paws (the animal charity she runs), which seems to have had a number of controversies may be notable, but that coverage isn't really about her specifically. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Per the creation of the Redemption Paws article by CT, I alternatively propose a Redirect to Redemption Paws. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Canada, and California. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging participants to the previous AfD: @Chris troutman:, @Scope creep:, @Willondon: @Oaktree b:, @NoSpamming:, @Curbon7:, @Deathlibrarian:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect - Although the article has an abundance of sources, after some research (on their respective websites) most of them seem untrustworthy. For example by offering "Feature Requests" as seen in the "Rival Magazine LA" source. The only reliable source I could find was CBS, which only mentions her as the owner of "non-profit organization Redemption Paws".--Excutient^Talk 20:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the creation of the Redemption Paws article by CT, I also support a redirect to Redemption Paws.--Excutient^Talk 13:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Excutient. Medarduss (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is significant coverage (WP:GNG) Her musical career isn't very notable, but she is making news:

1. https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2022/03/02/this-is-not-right-behind-the-bitter-fight-for-one-of-torontos-most-high-profile-rescue-dogs.html (7 mentiones)
2. https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2022/04/29/redemption-paws-shipped-difficult-rescue-dogs-to-newfoundland.html (15 mentions) CT55555(talk) 22:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely given that other aspects of her career are not notable, the notable topic here is in fact Redemption Paws and not Simone herself? Would you agree to retooling this article into one about the organisation instead? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think founding a notable organisation and having a mildly notable musical career justify my keep vote, so I don't plan to change it (but I have an open mind, I could be persuaded). But of course I find redirecting better than deleting. I do think the article needs a rewrite to include more about Redemption Paws, but to say more about that would be to stray outside the scope of AFD discussions, I think. CT55555(talk) 00:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't remember the name, but the photo, I did. She's more notable as a dog rescue person, the music career didn't pan out. She's mentioned here [1], here [2] and the like. I'd agree that the charity is likely more notable. There isn't an article for the charity. Can we Redirect to a non-existant article? Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can find mentions of the charity dog rescue from 2017, 2020 and 2022. There seems to be continued coverage about it, some a bit unflattering, but it's likely at GNG. She's mentioned in every article about the charity since 2017, she's clearly deeply involved with it. Not sure if that makes her notable. And based on what I've read in the last AfD and some of these articles, she tends to sue people that don't paint a flattering picture of the organization. Not sure I'm wanting to venture down that rabbit hole by creating the article, but a redirect is probably the best. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hope this helps: Redemption Paws CT55555(talk) 23:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:BASIC and WP:PROMO, and a redirect to Redemption Paws could be created after deletion of this WP:BROCHURE. There are a few reputable sources, e.g. CBC Toronto, CBS News, CTV Toronto) but these reproduce promotional statements by Simone about Redemption Paws with minimal secondary context to support WP:BASIC notability. The Toronto Star has done some in-depth reporting on the organization but one of the March 2022 reports is not about her, it includes her statements and denials of the allegations about the organization; another report in March 2022 includes allegations about her and by her, and her denials of wrongdoing; and in April 2022, there is some brief context about a prior legal case but otherwise denials of allegations. I think this kind of in-depth coverage of the organization can help support its notability, but for this article, seems insufficient to support WP:BIO, particularly with the unsupported notability per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NACTOR. Beccaynr (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Redemption Paws. This is a tough case and I sure hope it doesn't end up in hopeless "no consensus" territory. Anyway, the problem is trying to cram too many careers into one article. There could possibly be a brief musician's article with the title Late July, focusing on that musical act in particular and simply mentioning her other names as historical info. That act got a few reviews, but her later music as Nicole Simone is unnoticed and non-notable. So she does not qualify for a full biography article as a musician. Meanwhile, Redemption Paws is notable (maybe not for good reasons) and Nicole Simone is usually mentioned as their CEO, but those articles are about the organization with no support for individual notability for Simone. So redirect her name to the organization in case anyone searches for it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote to Delete per the ensuing discussion below, due to evidence of conflicts of interest and coatracking strategies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has over 30 citations, mostly about her music. She meets WP:MUSICBIO. Criterion 1 states: "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"...There are numerous articles about her music and reviews of her songs. In addition, she meets WP:BASIC which states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Redrosally (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already voted above, but for anyone who insists that this woman should have an article because her music got some reviews, the article should be focused on the act called Late July, with that title at the top, because that is what got reviewed. Her activities outside of that act are already covered at the Redemption Paws article and there is no need for repeats in multiple articles. Otherwise my own vote stands as-is. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO says Musicians [...] may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria and the creator of the article Redrosally suggests Criterion 1 applies. However, while there is one brief review in Earmilk, [3], the other sources in the article about Late July, i.e. v13.net, which operates a promotional business; Rival Online, which has an aspiring writer and writer on staff and reproduces what Simone says about her music, as well as the same superficial marketing copy reproduced on many low-quality sites; Elicit Magazine, which promotes itself as "Every Music Artist Has A Story, We Tell Yours" and "We work to give musicians the opportunity to be heard by the people they’ve always dreamed would vibe to their music" and is not a review - it is reproduced marketing copy announcing the release of a single; Influence Insider, another SEO clickbait website (check out its sidebar) that posts an interview and overview of songs without a byline; the Shipwreck'd! blog that "services the fashion and entertainment industry with press releases, bios, publicity and other communications"; Canadian Beats Media blog "Check out the video below and find out more about Late July via our Five Questions With segment"; Grimy Goods blog reproducing marketing copy and what Simone says; Too Much Love media company announcement based on what Simone says; Music Talkers announcement based on what Simone says about no longer working as Late July, posted by "a regular contributor for established press release distribution website Release-News.com"; and a basic All Music entry, do not support notability per this guideline, because these are not independent and reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that was directed at me then it is completely unnecessary because I agree with you everywhere else in this debate. I did not say that Late July is definitely notable, and only mentioned it as a possibility. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source analysis seems generally helpful for this discussion, e.g. there is mention above of 'numerous articles about her music and reviews of her songs' as support for notability. Beccaynr (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She meets the notability guidelines and has significant coverage. I have found these additional articles about her:

- theconfidencemag.com - Article about her

- inspirationfeed.com - Article about her

- lingermagazine.com - Article about her

- artvoice.com - Article about her

- essentiallypop.com - interview, but it has a paragraph of info on her

- fiercefabulousrevolution.com - Music review

- wefoundnewmusic.com - music review

- twostorymelody.com - Interview, but also has 3 paragraphs of intro on her

- musictalkers.com - Music review

- ocnjdaily.com - About Redemption Paws, her organization, but mentions her many times

- ladygunn.com - Interview, but has 4 paragraphs of intro on her

- hollywooddynamics.com - Interview, but has a very long intro on her

I think that all editors above should reevaluate their votes based on these sources.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepers215 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't all (or even mostly} reliable sources at all, so none of them establish passage of GNG — GNG requires coverage in reliable sources, not just in any random website you can find her name in. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of those are unreliable services used by self-promoters who practice dishonest SEO tactics. That method can get someone near the top of search results but it is a shallow accomplishment at best. See also the intensive and convincing analysis by Beccaynr below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think these sources help raise further concerns about this article being WP:ADMASQ, because there seems to be a pattern of likely paid self-promotion by the subject in low-quality sources:

• The Confidence post is written by "a blogger and social media manager. She enjoys blogging about current events, lifehacks, and her experiences as a millennial working in New York." On this website, the Latest Articles sidebar lists "What Aspiring Professional Musicians Need to Know (An Interview with Jiawei..."; "How Does Online Video Marketing Work?"; "How To Create The Best Video Marketing"; "How Can You Use Video Marketing?"; "How To Create An Animated Marketing Video". This is not a reliable source and it further lacks independence because it is based on an interview ("With the rest of the article, we’d like to share some of Simone’s thoughts...").
• Inspirationfeed "is a digital magazine covering everything from quotes, net worth, self-development, entrepreneurship, entertainment, technology, and creativity." It is also a sponsored content farm: "Inspirationfeed also occasionally receives monetary compensation or other types of remuneration for mentioning and/or linking to any products and services from this blog." It is not reliable coverage of her or her work with Redemption Paws.
• The Linger source lacks a byline and appears to be reproduced marketing copy, on a website that describes itself as "an internation publication that showcases the industries of fashion, beauty and art with a focus on the creatives" and offers "celebrity interviews, coveted event coverage, engaging collaborations, industry partnerships and more" - this is a low-quality content farm that appears to have no staff or editorial policies posted.
• Artvoice "was excited by the opportunity to talk to Simone about all of her projects" and is not independent coverage, and the reliability of this website appears questionable at best.
• EssentiallyPop is a blog, and the paragraph intro to the Q&A that might as well be a press release is trivial coverage about her, although it has an interesting factoid about the location of the original television Bat Cave.
• Fierce and Fabulous Revolution is another blog, that also appears to reproduce the same marketing copy that appears on other websites.
• The WeFoundNewMusic post is marked "blog" and the website describes itself as "an artist discovery platform".
• Two Story Melody is a website with over 30 contributing writers listed, and the 8 sentences of superficial marketing copy that precedes the Q&A is trivial coverage in this context.
• The MusicTalkers post is written by "a regular contributor for established press release distribution website Release-News.com." The website also offers a sliding scale Music Promotion Packages and has other indicators of being a sponsored content farm.
• The OCNJDaily post is bylined to "MediaWize" and is based on what Simone says. MediaWize appears to post similar interviews and PR copy.
• LadyGunn notes that it has "a VERY SMALL editorial team", and the excessively-capitalized introduction to the Q&A posted by LadyGunn staff is a version of the same superficial marketing copy that appears across similar websites.
• The Hollywood Dynamics post is written by "a writer and blogger for Hollywood Dynamics", and its sidebar includes links to "How Much Are Ubers In Los Angeles", "How Much Are Utilities In Los Angeles", "How To Watch Ncis Los Angeles In Uk", "How Much Is Uber From Los Angeles To San Diego", "How Much Is A Storage Unit In Los Angeles", "How Much Is Unemployment In Los Angeles", "How Far Is Los Angeles From Las Vegas By Plane" and "How To Get Vaccinated In Los Angeles", which seem to be SEO clickbait for this spam website. The intro to the Q&A is also a version of the same superficial marketing copy that appears across similar websites.

Beccaynr (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As noted by others there appears to be enough citations and sources to justify keeping the page.Dubarr18 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's just about how much there is, it's enough, but what is disputed is whether the coverage is independent and from reliable sources. Most of it looks questionable. Peter James (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Toronto Star stuff I linked above is surely independent though, right? CT55555(talk) 01:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Toronto Star is coverage of Redemption Paws - per WP:INHERITORG, An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    She is mentioned 7 times in one and 15 in the other. I wasn't making an argument based on inherited notability, but one based on them being significant coverage of her, even if she isn't the primary focus of either articles. CT55555(talk) 01:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    One of your earlier comments [4] included I think founding a notable organisation and having a mildly notable musical career justify my keep vote, so I don't plan to change it (but I have an open mind, I could be persuaded), so the guideline seems relevant to that aspect of this discussion, and I discussed the Toronto Star coverage in my !vote comment [5] - the mentions appear to mostly be related to her statements, which is not independent coverage of her. Also, the Toronto Star is technically one source, publishing multiple articles in a short period of time - it seems to help support a redirect after this article is deleted, but does not appear to support WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability, particularly after the quality, independence, and depth of the other available sources are closely reviewed. There does not appear to be significant coverage based on combined independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am continuously re-evaluating my !vote on this one, and I respect the points you've made, and yes I've not been clear how much I'm arguing based on WP:BASIC or GNG or the inherit guideline, so I acknowledge that, and sorry for that. I guess I'm trying to think of the spirit of all of them, and treat them all as guiding me, rather than hard rules. I'm still mildly leaning keep, still open minded, respect the arguments to delete, this isn't an easy one. CT55555(talk) 01:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    After reviewing the sources and in light of your creation of the Redemption Paws article, I am also thinking about what this article will look like after the non-RS sources are removed. I also agree with a focus on the spirit of the policies and guidelines, including because we don't have many strict rules here. And I think your effort to create the new article is commendable and clearly done in the spirit of helping preserve encyclopedic content. Beccaynr (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

none of the sources you've listed are ones we can use for RS, we need Billboard, a major newspaper or the like to talk about her. Oaktree b (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : I was accused of sock puppetry by Beccaynr, but the CU has found it otherwise. I believe that Beccaynr is trying everything she has got to get her POV accross and is not coming from a WP:NPOV because of her dispute with me in the sock poppet investigation. I request the admins to strike her comments and vote. Her actions here equal bullying WP:Bully, just because she has 21k edits that does not give her the right to harass newer editors and try to make her own view point across. Please note that according to policy WP:BASIC it states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Because of numerous significant citations, this subject meets notability. as even Beccaynr has said, there are numerous articles that have sections which are acceptable.Redrosally (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Welcome to wikipedia. Thank you for starting an article that is a biography of a woman. We need more of that around here. I'll briefly offer some advice, which I hope is helpful. It can be stressful when someone nominates an article you worked on for deletion. It may help you to know that I doubt this one will get deleted, it seems to be heading towards being kept or merged or renamed.

  Beccaynr has a track record of careful and thoughtful editing, and even though I disagreed with their edits here, it seems clear to me that they are editing in good faith. The justification for the investigation seems fair to me. Assuming good faith (link to guideline: WP:AGF) is the expected norm on Wikipedia and action can be taken against editors who don't. Also, if you really have an issue with someone's behaviour, the starting point is a conversation on their talk page. I would urge you to pause, breathe, wait, see how this turns out, and you might find things seem less stressful in a few days. And please do assume good faith. Peace, CT55555(talk) 17:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timtempleton (filed 01 February 2023). Beccaynr (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All are blogs or self-promotion websites, so not helpful. Further proof that she isn't notable if this is all we have for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hello again everyone! As you might remember I nominated her article for deletion last time. As I don’t have much experience with Wikipedia and my motivation for that nomination was under suspicion I’m just commenting here, however I support either delete or redirect. The analysis of sources by Beccaynr is excellent and I think says enough. There hasn’t been any significant increase in notability for her music since the last article was deleted, however there has been some in relation to Redemption Paws.

As you can tell from the paid media coverage Nicole Simone has a habit of trying to buy fame and awards. Analysis of her social media following suggests she may have paid for a significant amount of her followers, and therefore I would not be surprised if she paid someone to create this page again, many business will take your money to do this. Therefore I find Redrosally’s involvement quite interesting, particularly how they “added more info about redemption paws” to the article as indicated on the talk page, yet managed to exclude all mention of the Toronto Stars articles. Arguably those articles are the most significant reporting done on the organization and also some of the most recent. I don’t find the section on redemption paws to be neutral as Redrosally wrote it given that omission. I also find immediately jumping to the assertion that they are being bullied to be interesting as on Redemption Paws social media they have used the same language that they are “being bullied” in response to any negative criticism.

I do support a redirect to Redemption Paws as I agree the organization is notable. However I have concerns about that article remaining neutral. I originally nominated her article after becoming increasingly frustrated with Greg, a personal friend of Nicole gatekeeping the edits and reverting anything that wasn’t positive.

Further Nicole herself has already tweeted about this Afd discussion, however in a way that grossly misrepresents the situation saying “In 2021 my Wikipedia was vandalized and removed. This year it was brought back and is now being removed but I'm just watching it like OK, how does this keep happening. Read it while you can! lol”

I find it quite suspect that she immediately knew about the page creation, unless she had a hand in its creation. Also her saying that it was vandalism and no mention of it being removed for lack of notability seems intentionally misleading.

Oaktree b Said “based on what I've read in the last AfD and some of these articles, she tends to sue people that don't paint a flattering picture of the organization. Not sure I'm wanting to venture down that rabbit hole by creating the article”

This is correct. Currently she is suing the former foster of Mayo (the dog profiled in the Toronto Star article who was sent to Newfoundland with no plan and eventually euthanized) for libel, slander and breach of contract. They have been maintaining an instagram account “dkfosters” where they have continued to highlight issues with Redemption paws and share other peoples experiences. This could very well be a legal rabbit hole and your concerns are valid.

She is also currently involved in a legal dispute over the ownership of a former foster dog that was adopted by their foster parent. Months after adopting when the owner posted a comment on the Redemption Flaws website Redemption Paws decided to take the dog back (by taking it from a vet without the owner present) and assert it had been stolen. A gofundme for legal fees have been started by the owner (espieandej on instagram). This legal action appears to be retaliation.

Redemption Paws themselves have recently posted about these lawsuits on their own social media, attempting to defend that they aren’t SLAPP suits.

I think that’s it… just wanted to provide some context and share my concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoSpamming (talk • contribs) 02:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT Like last time, the subject fails ANYBIO and GNG, despite how much paid-for content and churnalism the subject may have bought. To that end, there's no reason to suggest a redirect because it would inevitably serve as a coatrack or be controlled by undeclared paid editors to keep the bad news out. In a perfect world, WMF would spend some of its ill-gotten gains taking legal action against the UPEs involved. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As in the 1st AfD, I reviewed the sources and found that almost all are content supplied by the subject: either interviews or material that shows up identically on different sites, or is otherwise obviously not researched by the publication itself. For example, a new one, The Confidence (as above) has a home page covered with articles on how online video marketing works, and what the aspiring professional musician needs to know. These are not reliable sources for notability. And given the article's rise from the ashes only 14 months after deletion, I also support SALTing. The only reliable coverage I see is the Redemption Paws topic, and the article that now exists is adequate in my opinion. The CEO simply isn't notable as an individual outside this role. My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I also support salt based on the article history and the discussion of sources in the AfDs. Beccaynr (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2023 (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.