Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakesha Woods

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lakesha Woods

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

Subject lacks notability. Sources indicate that the extent of being an artist is performing in small local events such as in restaurants, Enjoy Life Magazine appears to be a publication with no evidence of notability itself, and "advocate" is so vague a term as to be meaningless, not to mention that the source it cites doesn't even mention the subject. The remainder of the sources are either primary or are for background information that has no direct connection to the subject. Additionally, it seems worth noting that the article's creator, Mediasource (talk · contribs), shares a name with PR agency MediaSource. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject lacks clear notability. Source mentions are incidental or promotional. Blackguard 23:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now. Give her another chance if she meets notability requirements. She wrote a sincere and polite letter for inclusion so I think we should give her a second chance, but she needs to look up Wikipedia's notability standards and meet the requirements. Knox490 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Lakesha Woods

Hello - just wanted to take a moment to respond to your concerns about my article. Lakesha Woods is a published author, spoken word artist and editor-in-chief of a nationally known publication that has a strong presence in the African American community. My user name may be similar or the same as a PR company, but it is just a username and I am not affiliated with any PR companies, and I stand to gain nothing at all from creating a Wikipedia page for Lakesha Woods. I follow urban entertainment and magazines.

Lakesha Woods has interviewed, musicians, entertainers, and reality TV stars who are very relevant in television and entertainment. The citations are to published interviews from third parties that interviewed Lakesha Woods - not and affiliated with her. Many of the artists and entertainers that she has interviewed are included in Wikipedia.

Cover stories on famous people such is Tyrese, Momma Dee (a reality star included in Wikipedia) celebrity chef Charles Mattocks who was also on Dr. OZ. I would have never known about some people if I wasn't following her work. Images where also included to show proof that she has interviewed nationally and internationally recognized individuals. Rather than be biased based on personal lack of knowledge of the individual let's see if we can give other users a chance to contribute and improve the article. I added as many citations as I could. There is so much online about her and I chose the content and interviews that I personally listened to. What can we do to make this better? I do believe that if her page is deleted it will continue to be added because she is continuously gaining recognition in urban media outlets all over.

I also don't understand why would you make a comment about my username. Aren't we allowed to make up names to protect our identity as contributors? If I had known that having a name similar to a company would be a problem I would have added my name. Please explain, or advise because it took me a very long time to create that article and I would not want to contribute again under this username if that is going to be a concern again in the future.

Mediasource (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediasource (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediasource (talk • contribs)

Notability of Lakesha Woods Response To: Blackguard

Greetings Blackguard, I'd like to address your request to delete my article on Lakesha Woods. There were over 25 citations listed and in my opinion, when a public figure has the attention of the media and they are contributing to society in a positive way, they are newsworthy and worth remembering. Granted most people in today's society become famous with little or no effort and without doing anything positive at all.

The citations are not promotion, but they are references to show where Lakesha Woods has been mentioned in news as one or all of the following:

An author
Editor of a magazine
Spoken Word Artist
Entertainment Journalist

Lakesha Woods has interviewed, musicians, entertainers, and reality TV stars who are very relevant in television and urban entertainment and media. The citations are to published interviews from secondary sources that have no ties to me or Lakesha Woods. Lakesha Woods does not own those radio broadcasts or The Miami Herald and after investigating the other journalist, I found out that Lakesha was requested to be on their shows. These were not paid promotions. With all due respect, if Wikipedia reviewers are going to be fair they shouldn't just skim an article with the thought in mind that you haven't personally heard of the person. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are on Wikipedi that I have never heard of and I could easily read there pages and concluded that they are not newsworthy because they aren't relevant in my community or to my way of life. However, to arrive at that thought as a final conclusion would be an unfair consensus.

Lakesha Woods has covered stories on famous people such is Tyrese, Calvin Richardson, Momma Dee (a reality star included in Wikipedia) celebrity chef Charles Mattocks who was also on Dr. OZ and he has a show coming to Discover Life. Are you aware of that? I wasn't and would have never known about some people if I wasn't following her writings and interviews on Lakesha Woods. I humbly beg to differ when you say that my references are incidental. Lakesha Woods has an identity of her own and when people from Paris are seeking interviews with her, artists and entertainers that have a lot more presence than her - that says a lot about the quality of her work and why she is rapidly being sought after.

What would you suggest to improve this article? As I previously mentioned, I don't think deletion is the answer. I'm just one person contributing and the page hasn't been up 24 hours. Rather than delete it I think we should give other users a chance to contribute to improve it. I do believe that if her page is deleted it will continue to be added over and over again. I stepped up to created it because I follow her work, I enjoy urban entertainment and urban publications. I also follow DJs and saw DJ RWAN on MTV and noticed that Woods interviewed him too. She is continuously gaining recognition in urban media all over the US.

Any feedback you have on improving would be nice. Mediasource (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

Delete: Whilst the enthusiasm is brilliant - Wikipedia needs dedicated contributors, on this occasion I can't find anything to establish notability. This really echos the need for reliable sources - which I can't find any. Of course if anybody finds something new, feel free to ping me here and I will glady evaluate and am totally willing to change my !vote, based on new evidence. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (new sources found) | NBC News Citation

I found a story on NBC WBBH News. I added it to offer verification of authorship and her career as a journalist. In the article she is noted as a journalist not as an editor. I also only added the citation behind the word 'author' within the Wikipedia article. I chose this citation because it references to a major news station. It also appears that NBC has picked up this story in more than one areas

NBC KMIR – Palm Springs, CA
NBC 12 – Richmond, VA
NBC – WFMJ – Youngstown -Warren, Ohio
NBC – KNDO 23 / KNDU 25 – Yakima, WA
NBC 10 – KTEN – TEXOMA – North Texas | S.E. Oklahoma
NBC 12 WSFA – Montgomery, Alabama

... and several others, but I only cited the article from the Florida station (NBC 2). I also didn't know if it would help to add the same story from the same network but in different areas. I also saw articles on CBS, ABC, FOX, and some AM/FM radio station websites. It appears that the subject has recently been in the news... I will let you experts check out the new citation before I add anything else. By the way, I have been reading the Wikipedia notability requirements and other things that were suggested. Thanks for the heads up and also thanks to those who have corrected some errors with pictures and other areas that I did not get right.

Mediasource (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

Unfortunately, and I really do hate to be the bearer of bad news, the reference you added appears, from the "einpresswire.com" byline and the contact information of a publicist at the bottom, to be a press release, which is still a primary source. The fact that a news organization republished it doesn't mean much in terms of establishing notability--a reprinted press release just shows that the subject is not considered sufficiently "worthy of note", as the notability guideline reads, for the news organization to dedicate independent coverage to, and if they can't justify that, then how can Wikipedia, which is written based on such independent sources? The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC

Is Speedy Deletion an Option?

With much effort I have tried to find verifiable sources and while there are a number of things to investigate online, I must concede. I do not have the time to research every byline or details within articles. I understand that you mention the article is from a press release, but is it not true that news outlets have a right to refuse submission if they determine that it is not "newsworthy"? Also, is it not true that even when news stations or radio covers a person - don't they usually mention how the public can reach them on social media, make drops about their up coming shows or mention their PR? What's the difference? NBC and all the other sites (I'm quite sure) have a right to refuse to publish material.

Mediasource (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

Reliable Sources

Although, there were many citations that mentioned the subject as an author, editor-in-chief, journalist, or spoken word artist. I do understand that those who voted 'delete', did so because they do not view some or all of the sources as reliable. One of you questioned editorial integrity, but I wonder, how can one say a publication or broadcast does not hold integrity or a good reputation, if you have not investigated the media outlet thoroughly? Have any of you investigated each source mentioned? Have you checked to see if at least one source has a production or editorial team with submission guidelines or publishing standards? I have, and most of the secondary sources that I mentioned where from publications that have been producing news and online content for close to 20 years. For instance Jazz REVIEW News has a full team and contact information published online, and have been established since 1997. That same source mentioned in a story that the subject is the editor-in-chief of a magazine. http://jazzreview.com/administration-/-editors/

Charlotte View Internet Radio and TV has a physical location that appears in search results with a list of members who are apart of the production team. These members were are also previous members of larger news and radio stations. Apparently these individuals broke away from mainstream media and started their own business. They did an entire print write-up and radio interview with the subject. However, you all have deemed them as "unreliable". Why? These people are professionals in the media industry. They have a physical location, publishers, editors, engineers, a program director, etc.

With all due respect, I find it to be a contradiction for editors or contributors to question reputation and reliable sources when Wikipedia has pages on people who are only celebrities or had a moment of fame because of association. Yet they hold half pages that leave us (the readers) with many unanswered questions. But, they were on TV once upon a time or had a really cool meme that went viral. So Wikipedia continues to hold space for them? My point is that we should only be concerned with the ability to confirm information. Can we confirm the publisher's contact information, the books or magazines ISBN, ISSN numbers, Library of Congress in Catalog number, Distributors information... interviews or at least one interview? Wikipedia even states that the news does not have to be "on going" on the subject.

Mediasource (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

Questioning the Mediums

Most celebrity bloggers and journalists of online magazines aren't working on a prime time show. Most use something like Wordpress, Youtube or BlogTalk Radio as their medium. It shouldn't matter what server the media outlet or company has selected to publish their content or air their broadcast on. Let me add that with the transmission of information and news being accessible online everything in essence has (not only) national recognition, but international recognition, because the internet makes content accessible world wide! We should not place ourselves in position to act as Media-Gods by classifying publications and broadcast all in the name of the truth... to confirm the truth? The truth is verifiable if you seek it. Everyone publishing online is not just handing out interviews and write-ups to anybody that will pay for time. To dismiss the initial local sources seems unfair...

Mediasource (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

Standards

I am seriously beginning to wonder if Wikipedia is as legitimate as it outlines itself to be in the standards. I have been seeing ads online claiming that people can pay to have a Wikipedia page put up or removed ... making substantial donations for admission. I was asked to become an editor by the Wikipedia for another country, but don't feel I can trust this site. School doesn't even allow us to use Wikipedia for citations. I see Wikipedia pages that represent legitimate people, but they are also labeled as an Afd, so that confuses me.

Mediasource (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[reply]

Duplicate Discussions on other Wikis

I do believe that another supporter, fan, or Wikipedia contributor will come alone and try to add a page again on Lakesha Woods. In Google searches I saw other wikis with her name and deletion pages that have this entire discussion on them. I believe this forum and the discussions here will hurt the subject's credibility. To have unknown editors debating as to whether she is notable or not, I'm starting to think this is doing more harm than help and that was not my intent. This also hurts the creditably of the sources that have been cited in the article. Even when the discussion is deleted it won't matter, because copy-cat wiki websites have already picked it up. Deleted the page...

Mediasource (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Mediasource[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.