Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chanale


 * 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. Consensus here is to Delete this article, for all of the reasons mentioned in this long discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Chanale

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The principal notability claim on offer here is that she and her work exist, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself, but the referencing isn't evincing a strong pass of WP:GNG -- it's referenced primarily to WP:BLOGS and podcasts, with only limited evidence of real journalism in real WP:GNG-worthy media shown at all. It also bears mention that this was moved from draftspace by its own principal drafter (although not the original creator) a few days ago, without ever being submitted for WP:AFC review. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Gnews is only hits from COLive. Gsearch is her videos, 3 pages of streaming sites then her wedding registry at "theknot". May she grow old with her spouse and live a happy life. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello @Bearcat, @Oaktree b,
 * While not the original drafter of this article (as noted), I have put significant follow-up editing on it after picking up its creation. I will apologize for not submitting the article to AfC for review, as it is only my second article (even if it's not one that I started and brought to approval itself), however, I will defend its worthiness for the namespace. Though I realize that Jewish artists are niche compared to the entire world as a whole, they do have a following of their own (be it for Jews, or people interested in the variety of Jewish culture), and do merit being highlighted.
 * I had to make a similar argument in regards to my first published article (which I did put through AfC, and which was eventually approved with considerable help from experienced editors), and the main issue that came up there seems to be the same as here. A lack of familiarity with properties such as Arutz Sheva (one of Israel's national networks) is not a reason to disregard it as a useful reference (I am referring to this interview, as referenced in the article).
 * Jewish personalities and artists, whether from Toronto, New York, Florida, Israel, or anywhere do deserve to be highlighted outside of Jewish spaces, and I think Chanale is of particular note because of how prolific she is. The fact that she is also a female working in a space in which only men are typically given a spotlight is quite interesting as well (especially in regard to the issues of artist credit and female erasure).
 * When I picked up the article, I saw a lot that didn't fit with Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality, and there was quite a lot of external linking that came across as promotional rather than informative. I put the work in to make the necessary adjustments on both fronts, as well as fix up the general writing, and add greater detail. I can still do more, if necessary, of course.
 * Thank you for your consideration, GreenEli (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but we need sourcing that proves notability. We can't conduct the research ourselves and need proof of widely published reviews of their work or features about them as a person in media. We aren't here to make them notable as Wikipedia isn't used as a promotional source. Perhaps unfortunate for certain segments of the population that are otherwise under-represented, but we still have to follow certain guidelines or this becomes a free-for-all and we lose any credibility Wikipedia has. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  17:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment GreenEli I'm confused about the sources listed in the article because a number of them don't even mention her. I think that you've talked about a type of music and have referenced that, but sources that aren't about the person of the article are not ok. You need to remove anything in the article that isn't about her, and use only sources that give information about her. The Salt Lake Tribune is the only substantial source I see here. You need to find at least one more, one that is more than just mentioning her name. Perhaps this should be taken back as a draft and gone through AFC? Lamona (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply @Lamona While it wouldn't necessarily be my ideal, if a redraft and run through the AfC process is needed, I'd give running that gauntlet a go again (as noted in my previous reply, that was a considerable challenge with my first article, on Shlomo Simcha, for which I actually was the original creator, and who is an artist in the same space - except he is male, and that has, with all due respect to his talent, made his career, and, therefore, tracking of it considerably easier).
 * That said, I will again acknowledge that I picked up this article after it had been started by someone else. I kept certain original reference footnotes in because I thought it important to keep the point of connection, for instance, to her great grandfather, and the claim regarding his introduction of the nigun noted within the article (upon re-read, I'm now catching that that sentence was almost entirely quoted from the referenced source - problematic?). I kept the Mishpacha Magazine reference because it, while not mentioning her directly, backs the claim about the impact the song continued to have following the events which lead to its creation. This may simply been a bad use of the reference system which I kept in.
 * Regarding other references, I think it important to bring up, as I did in my initial defence of the article, that the first reference is an article about Chanale, the second is a nearly-16-minute interview with her, the sixth is an digital archival copy of a newspaper article prominently mentioning her, and then, as you mentioned, there's the Salt Lake Tribune article. I'm noting this alongside that defence because the consideration for deletion seems to, first, devalue how big of a deal COLLive is (I am not Chabad, myself, but I am well aware of its stature as a news source in the Orthodox world, especially Chabad - and I have seen it used as a valid source in multiple articles on Orthodox artists as well), second, disregard the fact that she was literally interviewed on a show on Israel's national network, Arutz Sheva (whether I agree with the politics of that network or not, it is a mass media network), and third (or, as far as the references go, sixth), look at cultural-specific publications as having no significance, or as being unsubstantial. I worry that such thinking could lead to cultural erasure.
 * (My defence excludes my addition of referencing her podcast episodes as backing of claims of those specific Jewish personalities having been featured on said podcast. I understand it may have been an inappropriate use, but I felt it was better than simply external linking to those episodes within the article lines, as that, to me, would have come across as promotional.)
 * All this in mind, I hope you will give this article, and its core references, further consideration for a continued place as a public article (even if it is one that requires improvement and adjustment/removal of some references). GreenEli (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Interviews are primary sources, and therefore do not support notability. Podcasts, her appearances on TV, etc., are primary sources. Sources that do not mention her do not belong in an article about her (they may be used in an article about the musical form, however). This has nothing to do with "how big a deal" anything is. To have an article it must be sourced as per WP policies. Lamona (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lamona I happened to check in again on this thread and was lucky enough to spot your reply. If you could, please tag me in future replies directed to me.
 * Thank you for the point about interviews being primary sources. I was not aware of that being an issue. WP:RS seems to suggest that secondary sources are the preferred source material, rather than entirely disqualifying primary sources, but I take your point regarding its use as a core supporting reference (though would still argue for its use as a reference in general).
 * Following a few minutes taken to remove Chanale's podcasts episodes as references, replacing them with external links (I am not sure that I have done so in an appropriate way, as I both believe it's important that the episodes are noted, but also do not want them to appear as promotion), and removal of externals links that do not mention her at all (please advise regarding the nigun reference), I took a few minutes to find and add a couple of additional articles from The Jerusalem Post and The Sydney Morning Herald. They should, at the very least, support the fact that who she is and what she does is notable to at least two (non-interview) international publications for her work (I realize that the SMH article quotes her, but it is not an interview about her work as a musician or content creator).
 * Finally, you may disagree with the use of COLLive as a reliable source, but the fact is that it's been used as one since at least 2014 (based on my dive into a couple of View History sections of some long-existing articles). That is well before I began dipping my toes into editing here. I get that "how big a deal" something is wasn't a particularly good defence of its importance (that was on my mind at the time of writing and, admittedly, it was lazy), but my concern is that what you are suggesting borders on promoting cultural erasure. If Jewish culturally significant information sources (even within the subset of Orthodoxy) are considered unreliable sources, what other groups' culturally significant information sources are unreliable because they don't meet your standard for what WP should consider as RS? I do not like the fact that the question comes out as it does, but that is the question that comes to mind here. Please keep in mind that I am not even Chabad or ultra-Orthodox, but this concerns me.
 * I've continued to make other edits while writing this reply. Please read through, and comment/provide assistance as necessary.
 * Thank you GreenEli (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * GreenEli No where did I or anyone say that "Jewish culturally significant information sources" are not reliable sources. COLLive is probably a reliable source, but the COLLive articles here are not significant sources because they are only mentions of her. A significant source is one that gives a good deal of information about the topic. A one or two sentence mention that a person appeared or performed is not significant. See WP:SIGCOV. It is generally thought that one needs at least two significant sources for an article, and especially for biographical articles. My guess is that more thorough sources may be found in sources in Hebrew, which means enlisting someone with those language skills to fill in what is missing here. Lamona (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We'd consider a peer-reviewed journal as the gold standard for sourcing, then a feature in something like the New York Times (or other prominent newspaper or magazine) about the individual, then a book chapter/entire book about them. Then the sourcing quality goes down from there. The more sources you can provide like the first two or three examples I've listed would help; interviews can't be used as a primary source, but can be used to flesh out the article once we have decent primary sources. If the subject doesn't have any mentions in any of these, there isn't much we can do to keep the article on Wikipedia. Notability standards are used here to help prove notability, thus helping to build a credible encyclopedia. Otherwise, this would be just a random collection of just about anything, from memes to video game characters to anyone who creates an article on xyz subject. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I've looked at the sources mentioned again, and I still don't see GNG. I can't find any others that have popped up since my !vote above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I was hoping that the creator could find more sources. I haven't found any that would bring this up to a keep level. I'd recommend that GreenEli keep a draft of this around in case some better sources are published in the future. The other thing to keep an eye out for is for her music to appear on a national music chart. (See WP:NMUSIC). I tried to look at the Israeli charts but, but course, they are in Hebrew so I couldn't check them. Lamona (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Lamona Please note, again, that I am not the creator of this article. There was the original creator, and another two people prior to my picking it up (Keith D appears to have been someone who took the original pass at reviewing the article, though I am unsure.)
 * I have time to edit this article when I have time, so the fact that I have not replied since last Wednesday doesn't mean that I've either been unable to find additional sources, nor that I've abandoned the article or my defense of it. As you point out, Hebrew language sources are tough to work with if you don't have an understanding of the language. I do, however, it's at a lower-to-middle level, so I have to jump between reading (slowly), using Google Translate, and then double-checking the words that Google Translate is translating to see if they make contextual sense. That takes time.
 * I appreciate that you're at least willing to consider some of the sources from which this article started, though I'm still not understanding what your issue with the COLLive articles is. If it is, as you admitted "probably a reliable source", then how is the very first reference (literally an article about how her move from Florida to Israel inspired the creation of one of her albums) not significant? It's about her, and it's not a couple of sentences. Along that line, and probably with greater significance, The Texas Jewish Post article is about an event, but features a mini-bio on her, over the two pages on which the article appeared in that paper (Top half of page 7 and bottom of page 21). That, too, is not just a couple of sentences. It's not a national Jewish publication, like the Canadian Jewish News, but it is a real publication and still exists to this day. And you already said that the Salt Lake Tribune article already met the standard. That's three, before even noting the interviews, or the passing mentions (and, again, the reference about her great grandfather, which, again, I need advice on how it should appear properly, if not being used as a reference).
 * This, however, brings me back to my previously-noted concern, especially with Oaktree b's commentary. If it's not a North American (or, what, European?) publication, it's not "prominent" enough? Comparing her to a meme is just degrading. She's not a passing joke, and is obviously known and established within the Jewish world. Beyond that, what Oaktree is saying is precisely the kind of issue I was raising with my previous reply to you, just far worse. Not only is it disqualifying a culturally significant publication as a source, because they don't deem it prominent enough, it's also (I would assume, completely unknowingly) helping the already heavy push for the erasure of women from ultra-Orthodox establishment, by only allowing male ultra-Orthodox artists to get recognition in these spaces. Is Oaktree's plan to start hunting down and eliminating Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish artists from WP? What kind of message does that send?
 * I will continue to find more sources in both English and Hebrew as possible, but the Hebrew ones will take more time.
 * I'd integrate more sources like the following, but, based on the previous discussion, have to assume they don't meet the standard:
 * A debate article between Orthodox Jewish artists and comedian Mendy Pellin from the Jewish News Syndicate (a Jewish wire service) - the article appears in other Jewish publications, but I saw that JNS is the source.
 * A short interview with her in Kveller (it's short and an interview, so that must be a double-hit against it)
 * This Hebrew-language article that I found from the major Israeli site Walla!, but still have to translate (I only just found the article, so it's going to take me a bit to translate)
 * This nearly-12-minute interview with her on major Hebrew-language site, Kikar HaShabbat (website) (it's Hebrew, so it would take a while to translate, and, again, it's an interview) GreenEli (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the "reliable sources" as here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources. Interviews are a primary source, we can use them to flesh out an article but not as a main sourcing text. I've not commented on the ethnicity or source country of the sources, a reliable source is a reliable source. I really don't care if it's African, Haitian or North American, the source needs editorial oversight and one that checks facts is best. You have one decent source, the rest aren't RS (reliable sources) as given in the list I've shared at the start of this comment. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Should make a decision on this one way or another, I feel SNOW is coming. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oaktree b Can you please clarify:
 * A) What the SNOW comment means?
 * B) Which is the one decent source to which you're referring, and what makes that one a better reference than the others?
 * C) How the Perennial sources list you shared doesn't even include The Jerusalem Post. For that matter, how it's possible that neither Arutz Sheva/Israel National News, nor The Times of Israel appear either, but Haaretz, a left-wing Israeli publication is (and is the only Israeli publication that's on the list, period). I am not even in the same political spectrum as INN or The Times of Israel, but those are internationally-recognized publications, not purely culturally-significant ones. To say that list of sources isn't exactly comprehensive would be an understatement.
 * Lamona I haven't heard back from you (perhaps you have other things you're attending to, as I was regarding my delayed reply). Do you have any further input? I still have to properly read through and translate the Hebrew articles, but, that aside, are you able to address the other parts of my previous reply. Beyond that, if I have not made this clear in previous replies, I want to ensure that I am properly using the sources being referenced, be they the existing ones, or new ones, and I have been requesting some guidance in that regard. Have you taken any issue with the use of the existing references (I keep bringing up the one about Chanale's great grandfather, and how to properly mention that, since it has already been noted that non-mentions cannot be references), and, if so, how would you like them to be corrected?
 * GreenEli One of the problems that you have is that there is a fair amount of content in the article that is not sourced. Especially in biographical articles it is essential that all information be cited to a specific source. Any information that is not sourced should be removed and may be removed by other editors. A statement like: "The song left a lasting impression on Fried's fanbase...." absolutely has to have a source. And the sources cited have to have the content that is written in the article. The #1 source does not say that she is a "classically trained guitarist". The #2 source does not support the statement about her great grandfather, at least I can't find anything with her name in that document. The "significant sources" problem is that if you delete everything in the article that is not in one of the cited sources you will have a very thin article. Most of the sources say only a small amount about her. It's tedious, but you have to demonstrate where all of the information comes from. If you can't provide sources at this time, but think that you will be able to in the future, one option is to take a copy of the article as a draft and give yourself the time to complete it. Lamona (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this exaggerates the difficulty a bit. It's not a problem for AFD if the article contains unsourced material or that it would be short if unsourced material is removed, that's just a cleanup problem. As long as there's enough information for a short article that's fine as long as the information is reliable and the coverage is significant. Jahaza (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Lamona Thank you, once again, for taking the time to consider the subject and sources, and to reply. If you look at the article's history since I picked it up, you'll likely notice the things that I did end up removing because they were either too promotional, or had nothing to back them up. I kept may other elements because, to me, it didn't make sense that they would fit as unsubstantiated claims up for scrutiny or potential debate.
 * In terms of the Fried song, that's a bit of a funny one, because I ended up removing that reference in response to your earlier points about sources having to mention the subject. The originally-referenced Mishpacha Magazine article (a 2019 article about the 2001-performed song and its impact on the author) didn't mention Chanale (this comes down both to issues of crediting the people involved with the creation of music in general and, more specifically to this, of crediting women in religious Jewish works). So, while the reference backed the claim, it had to go!
 * Regarding the #2 source you listed, it sounds like you're referring to reference #3. This was the one I've brought up multiple times in my previous comments, saying that I understand that it needs to be removed as a reference because, as noted, it doesn't mention her - but that it, like the Mishpacha article, is directly related to the claim being made (in this case, about her great grandfather).
 * Now, I'm still happy to continue putting the effort in on bolstering the article with more sources as I find them and am able to translate them (though I've spent much of the little time that I have available to work on this taking part in this discussion rather than actually doing that part), but I'm also confused because someone like Jahaza is coming in and saying that a short article is not a problem (while also saying that they don't find the coverage to be significant in their own comment [or just that the SLT and JNS articles would not be significant coverage by themselves?]). I've seen WP articles that are a couple of lines long, with minimal referencing, or articles about people with a single reference that was just a record of employment from their workplace's website, and they're up without issue (and I would not advocate for them to be taken down for the same reasons I've noted earlier about those peoples' cultural significance), so I just end up being left wondering why an article like this, longer and with better references than those gets such scrutiny.
 * It doesn't mean I won't put the effort in to keep improving upon what was left when I got here, and on what I added/altered, but you can't blame me for wondering about the whole thing. GreenEli (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Finally, if I do have to take this back through AfC (as I said from your initial input, it's not my ideal, but I would do it were it deemed necessary), what is the process for doing that so the existing article can be preserved and further improved? GreenEli (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW means we're just turning around in circles. I have no further comments on the rest of it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not so much that it's foregone conclusion that this will get deleted or not deleted, just that we've talked about it enough at this point. Let's just decide one way or another and move on with life. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oaktree b Still new to the editor lingo. Thanks for explaining that.
 * I'm not sure how you can have no further comment when I am requesting a direct answer to a direct statement you made. You stated that one of the sources is RS. Which is it, and what makes it better than the other ones (especially given the points in my reply, yesterday, to Lamona)?
 * Of course it will get deleted or not. That's the point of the discussion.
 * But you're talking about removing one of (if not the) first female ultra-Orthodox Jewish musicians to have an article written about her on this platform, and an article that's better-referenced than some of her male peers, and even the longer-established, bigger names in that space, using (at least) the exact same publications used as reference for those articles. That's before even getting to the source use of a print publication that's been around since 1947 and has an editorial structure (or at least had - I don't read it, and it was already a reference before I picked up the article). And I was still willing to put the extra work in to find "better" sources!
 * I don't dare mention a single one of those artists, because I actually do worry about the deletion nomination spree you may decide to go on. I may not have created this article, and I may not be of her sect (I don't even share her political views), but I do stand by its importance in the turn toward recognition and representation for women in ultra-Orthodox Judaism. And, if it wasn't clear, I stand by the importance of Jewish representation on a platform like WP in general, because even ultra-Orthodox Jews deserve to be highlighted and discovered (and not just ones that appear in the NYTimes). GreenEli (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing further to say about this to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, although I'm concerned that there may be undiscovered sources offline and/or in Hebrew and Yiddish and in the Jewish press here in New York and elsewhere. I would add that it does not, in fact, bear mentioning that the article was created in draft space and moved to mainspace without WP:AFC review, as AFC remains an optional process and that the article was not created through that process has no bearing on the deletion criteria.--Jahaza (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd note that several of the comments above seem to be unaware of the Salt Lake Tribune and Jewish News Service articles, which are solid contributions to substantial coverage, but not enough by themselves. Jahaza (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. That's an interesting note, regarding the method by which I moved the article following my picking up of its editing. I'll probably still put articles I create personally through AfC going forward, nonetheless (and if it's possible to do the same with drafts I pick up, like this one, I would do the same as well). The process was difficult with the article I personally created and put through the AfC process, but it was approved in the end.
 * I'll say that it's disappointing to see that the SLT and JNS articles would not be enough to fortify the arguments for keeping the article (though I've yet to actually add in mention of the JNS piece within the article itself, at this point. I was more interested in looking into the Hebrew-language sources of which I know (and others I might not yet have found) before adding in the JNS piece (unless you think it's worthwhile adding it in sooner). I just haven't had the time to devote to properly sitting down, reading, and translating them over the past few days (heck, I've barely had time for these replies).
 * Not happy with the further vote for deletion, of course, but I do appreciate that you took the time to fully consider the article and its sources (even ones that have only been discussed thus far). GreenEli (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.