Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Del Delker

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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Del Delker

Del Delker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This vocalist doesn't seem notable enough to pass WP:NMUSIC since all the references in the article are primary EXCEPT FOR TWO (WHICH ARE NOT ABOUT THE PERSON AND LIKELY TRIVIAL COVERAGE) and I was unable to find any in-depth reliable secondary sources in a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't understand the nominator's argument to delete a well-sourced article like this. Delker was a well-known gospel singer associated with the Seventh-Day Adventist church. That doesn't mean that sources related to Seventh-Day Adventism are "primary"; it means that's where you're likely to find information about her. Independent published books like Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and The A to Z of the Seventh-Day Adventists are perfectly reliable sources; you can't discount sources that are on-topic as "Seventh-day Adventist material". That's like saying that books about the United States aren't reliable sources for George Washington. If you need a non-Seventh-Day Adventist source, though, then here's one from the Oakland Tribune: "Gospel Singer Comes Home; Offers Two Eastbay Recitals". — Toughpigs (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say sources "related" the church are primary sources? The ones that are from the church are primary and 90% of the in the article are. If you want to argue about the two that aren't are enough to make her notable your free to, don't miss quote me though. Personally, I don't think the couple in the article that aren't primary (and probably extremely trivial coverage) or the one you cited of a local newspaper's coverage of her singing at a local church recital are enough to make her notable, but that's my prerogative. I fully expect the other standard less inclusionists like you to vote keep because she did a recital at her local church once though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"all the references in the article are primary" — Toughpigs (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I accidently left out a few words. So sue me. I updated it. BTW, I love it how nominators have to be 100% perfect in how they phrase and do things, but then none of the keep voters do. Apparently that whole "assume good faith" thing that you where spouting in the other AfD doesn't apply when I'm the one making a mistake. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: According to WP:NMUSIC, a singer is notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician. Independence is defined at WP:INDEPENDENT as having independence ("advertisers do not dictate content") and no conflicts of interest ("no potential for personal, financial, or political gain"). Evaluating the sources:

• IAMA is independent of Del Delker, non-trivial, and published; it is frequently used as a secondary source on Adventist musicians.
• Adventist Today is independent of Del Delker (it is not owned by the church and is frequently critical of the church), non-trivial, and published.
• Adventist Review is independent of Del Delker, non-trivial, and published. There are a number of quotes from Del Delker in the article, but quotes don't prevent a New York Times article from being independent, nor are the quotes the majority of the article.
• Adventist Book Centre and Morning Song eStore are not independent of Del Delker because they profit off of her books and CDs.
• Light Bearers is independent of Del Delker. The coverage could be argued as "trivial," but I'd argue otherwise. It is obviously a published source, nor was the book self-published.
• Del Delker's autobiography is obviously not independent.

Overall, it would appear that there are four published, non-trivial, independent sources for Del Delker, which satisfies WP:NMUSIC, therefore I vote keep. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think your analysis was otherwise fair, I take issue with your statement that Adventist Review and Adventist Today are independent of the subject. The Adventist Review is the official news magazine and TV ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and she worked for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. So 100% they aren't a neutral, independent source. Just like any source who is talking about someone they are connected to wouldn't be.

WP:INDEPENDENT says the source can't be affiliated with the subject. The same goes for Adventist Review. Their website says they are a "journalism ministry serving the global Adventist community." So it's not just not a random music review site like AllMusic or similar ones. More so is that particular article not independent though because it was written by Michele Stotz, who is the public relations director of Voice of Prophecy, where she worked. In no way is an "article" by the public relations director where she worked independent. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I see that I missed Michelle Stotz being the PR person for Voice of Prophecy, so I accept that is not independent. I still think the Adventist Review passes WP:Independent, because while Del Delker and the Adventist Review author may have both "worked for the church," they worked for different organizations within the church, with significant organizational distance. A similar comparison would be to ask whether a random professor at St. Xavier University, Cincinnati could be considered an independent source on Mother Teresa. While you could argue they both "work for the church", there is obviously no financial relationship between them; and the examples listed under "third-party" would seem to back up that interpretation: "self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials," none of which includes the Adventist Review article. Likewise, from earlier in the WP:Independent article: "A "third-party" source is one that is not directly involved in any transaction related to the subject, but may still have a financial or other vested interest in the outcome." Given the above, I still believe that the Adventist Review and its author are considered third-party to Del Delker, given that the Adventist Review and its author had no financial or vested interest in the outcome; and according to WP:Independent, it is sufficient to be merely third-party (the paragraph directly before the section heading "wikipedia's requirements"). This leaves three independent sources, one more than the minimum requirement according to WP:NMUSIC. NorthernFalcon (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction to the previous comment: the Adventist Review would be fully independent, because the meaning of "vested interest" is "a personal stake or involvement in an undertaking, especially with an expectation of financial gain." Likewise, from the caption under the picture in WP:Independent: "If you aren't selling it, you're probably an independent source about it." The Adventist Review does not see financial gain from the Voice of Prophecy, nor do they sell the Voice of Prophecy, so I believe the Adventist Review is sufficiently independent. But even if they're not, there's still two other independent sources, which satisfies WP:NMUSIC. NorthernFalcon (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with your analysis is that independence isn't just confined to the outlet that is publishing the article. It also includes the writer of the article. There's zero reason that the PR person for Voice of Prophecy would write an article about someone who worked for them unless there was something to be gained from it on Voice of Prophecies end. It doesn't have to just be a financial gain either. It could also include increased listenership, etc etc. Just like someone from Apples press department wouldn't be an independent source of information about Tim Cook even if Apple isn't being directly being handed cash as a result of the article. They, and Michele Stotz, are being paid by the company both parties work for to write it though. It's immaterial that a one to one correlation of financial gain isn't involved. It is for the writers in both cases though. Since it's their jobs. As far as the random professor thing goes, I'd agree with if we were talking about "who" write the article, but we aren't. The issue where the article was printed. If Debbonnaire Kovacs had of written the article on her/his own or in some "random" magazine, fine. I wouldn't have an issue with it, but it's not a random magazine. A more appropriate analogy would be if the Vatican is an independent source about Mother Teresa's canonization and I'd argue not. Even if it was written by the janitor of the Apostolic Palace. Remember, "editorial oversight" or lack thereof is a thing. It's almost guaranteed that a church printing information about said church or people involved in it (she's not a random singer) will not have editorial oversight or any other journalistic/ethical standards about what they are publishing. Especially a PR person. You could maybe argue that Mother Teresa didn't "work" for the papacy in the traditional sense of an employee/boss relationship, but then you'd just be arguing about semantics. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I got thrown a little by a minor error in your first comment--I replied assuming that the PR person for the Voice of Prophecy was writing for Adventist Today, when they were actually writing for the Adventist Review. I should have checked that myself, so I'll take the blame there. At any rate, I accept that the article written by Michele Stotz for the Adventist Review is not independent, and thank you for catching that. The Adventist Today journal, however, qualifies as independent, because the Adventist Today journal is not owned by the Adventist church and do not have a financial relationship with the Adventist church. Debbonnaire Kovacs is not employed by the Adventist church, has no known association with the Voice of Prophecy, could therefore expect no financial benefits from any increased attention to Del Delker, and therefore is independent of the subject. As such, we're still at three independent sources. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. People make mistakes. Personally, I'd say two that are likely usable since independence isn't the only metric to notability and the one about her singing at a church where she lives is pretty trivial and run of the mill. Outside of that though, there's likely just two sources. Which is extremely borderline, but really id be fine if it went either way at this point. Although, I still wish there were at least some reviews of her albums or something similar. Since that's usually the bar of notability for musicians. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is notable and sources confirm this.
  talk) 02:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Oughtn't this be added to the radio deletion sorting list?
  talk) 02:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  DiamondRemley39, Toughpigs did :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  talk) 00:52, 25 September 2020 (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.