Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chancellorpink


 * 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. I'll note that aside from a single weak keep, all of the other keep !voters are sockpuppets. v/r - TP 02:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Chancellorpink

 * – ( View AfD |View log]] )
 * (AllMusic)

Non-notable musician, only news hits are to his hometown newspaper, I can find no reliable sources in the first five plus Google pages I looked through. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a fine well-written entry. His album sold well through my distribution company for years, and this is as legit as any other Wikipedia entry. No need to delete.WantLess (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article itself sites to several reviews and articles from the UK as well as to an article from the magazine PopMatters, none of which are local to the musician. The very first page of Google turns up numerous YouTube video links, a Twitter link, internaitonal and national lyric links, etc.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

14:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * delete Zero references, no indication of wp:notability.  An electronic only album by an artist who does not have an article in Wikipedia.  I wish the artist the best  but IMHO that is the wiki-reality. North8000 (talk)

*KEEP. There are lots of references on the Chancellorpink page and lots of indications of notability, in Europe and all throughout the US. More than 79,500 Google link references associated with this artist. There is only 1 electronic-only album. There are Four (4) albums by Chancellorpink that are available in CD format on Amazon.com, ALLMusic.com, etc., for commercial sale. He has released 4 Studio Albums since 2006, which, again, are available commercially across the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.119.41 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — 24.2.119.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * One of the very first references cited in the Chancellorpink wiki is for a review of one of his internationally released albums in The Epoch Times. The Epoch Times is an International paper, released both online as well as in print in the following nations: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States. Further, that paper is released in the followsing languages: Chinese | Korean | French | German | Spanish | Japanese | Russian | Ukrainian | Hebrew | Romanian | Bulgarian | Slovak | Swedish | Indonesian | Vietnamese.  So Chancellorpink has been written about in all of those languages in print.  Also, here is a review of one of his CDs written in German and released in Germany: http://www.crossover-agm.de/cdChancellorpink08.htm.  To claim that Chancellorpink has only articles local to his hometown and that he has no indication of notability is simply incorrect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.119.41 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC) IP blocked by checkuser Gerardw (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reviews are not proof of notbility. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

*Well how about this ARTICLE (not a review), then, from a radio station in Sacramento, California (many miles from Pittsburgh, PA, last time I checked): http://twirlradio.com/2008/03/01/featured-artist-marchapril-2008-chancellorpink. Obviously, they seem to have taken note of Chancellorpink out west. Plus common sense says that if people in Europe (such as, once again, here in Germany: http://www.dailypop.de/index.php/chancellorpink-%E2%80%93-still-life-self-portrait-cadillac/) are writing about a guy from Pittsburgh PA, they are probably listening to his music in that far off land, nowhere close to his hometown, which is probably why they are also watching Chancellorpink YouTube Videos of his songs and why his songs are still being played on stations in the UK and in Canada, like just last week on LG73 in Vancouver http://www.lg73.ca/. I'm not sure how you define notability, but when several different countries and continents have taken notice of a solo artist musician from Pittsburgh, PA by writing reviews and articles about him and playing his music on the radio, and the guy only started recording solo in 2006, I'd say that would be "notability" in most people's books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.119.41 (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) IP blocked by checkuser Gerardw (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * twirlradio.com is not a reliable source. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read the guidelines for reliable sources, and Twirl Radio absolutely applies. As does the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, which is cited in the piece, and PopMatters.  Here...read about the site PopMatters: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/about  I'd say that's the epitome of the definition for a reliable source.  The Chancellorpink page should absolutely stay. Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

*Keep the refs don't exactly scream reliability, but there are plenty of them, some are quite detailed (non-trivial) and independent. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC) withdrawn see below


 * Lots of non-reliable sources do not trump the lack of reliable sources, especially when it comes to a BLP. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

*I don't see how anyone could call the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette an unreliable source. It is one of America's oldest newspapers and is still in print and going strong. Read about it. Yes it's local to the artist, but given the additional and significant International notice Chancellorpink has received, the authority of the Post-Gazette should be recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.119.41 (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC) IP blocked by checkuser Gerardw (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, to be thorough, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which is definitely a reliable source, has written at least 3 articles, that I could find, (NONE of them reviews..they are actual pieces in the published newspaper, about Chancellorpink): http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09113/964844-388.stm, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08045/857097-388.stm and http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06180/701887-42.stm.  So, that's 3 articles by a reliable source indicating notability.  When combined with the additional sources noted above and in the wiki, many of which are quite detailed (as was stated by Tigerboy) and International, I think it really has to be a KEEP to any reasonable mind. Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looking at WP:MUSICBIO, it seems that no contributor disputes that the article doesn't meet points 2 thru 12.  (example - Notability is not being claimed for the label, Wax Electric.)  Point 1 is the issue.  I don't think that "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." has been demonstrated.  The Epoch Times isn't exactly reliable -IMHO - for example.  I wish the musician well, whatever the result of this AfD. Colon el  Tom 12:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.theepochtimes.com/ What is not reliable about it?  That you haven't heard of it?  What is not reliable about PopMatters?  About Twirl radio?  That you haven't heard of them?  What is not reliable about the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette?  That you are a Patriots fan? lol But...seriously.  Also, it has to be noted that this AFD was only started by  Mark of the Beast after someone vandalized the page.  Someone with a personal grudge deleted the entire page and replaced it with a sentence designed to be a slur.  Go look at the history.  Although that was immediately reversed, within only 3 minutes Mark of the Beast appeared and listed the page for deletion.  As such, I challenge his/her motive.  Finally, if you truly wished the musician well you'd realize that he is still making music, and so perhaps he may show up in a source YOU might consider reliable tomorrow.  He is already in numerous that I consider reliable and independent today.  The criteria has been met. Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've certainly heard of the Epoch Times. I've read it several times.  It's a single issue newspaper devoted to the downfall of Chinese communism.  It is inherently biased.  I do not suggest that the bias flows to 100 word album reviews that they use as (IMHO) filler between the political articles, but I do believe that it is an unreliable source.  That aside - in my opinion, notability hasn't been proven as far as I'm concerned.  This is NOT a criticism of the musical merits of the performer, or of the good work done in compiling this article. Colon el  Tom 19:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * More on the Epoch Times. Here is its print subscription page: http://subscribe.theepochtimes.com/  There are a couple reader testimonials there.  It's an International newspaper, both online and in print in numerous countries, as indicated above.  Again, this is only one of about 20 independent sources cited in the Chancellorpink wiki page.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Weakest of keeps. I pretty much agree with Col Tom's analysis, however, I'm willing to let the article squeak by on the Epoch Times/Pitt Gazette coverage. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  20:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep The artist is written up twice in PopMatters, which is actually my favorite American music (and movie) mag -- reliable, independent and, well, good! He also has several UK write-ups, including one from Americana-UK, which is another music site I read often and find to be excellent and reliable as a source for cool music.  Those two sources alone meet criteria 1.  Additionally, the artist has the very long piece from the radio station in Cali (Twirl), and multiple pieces on German music sites, including one even written in German.  Add in The Epoch Times and the 3 write-ups from the Pittsburgh paper, and the sources are multiple, non-trivial, definitely independent and several are actually very reliable to fans of indie and original music.Soundsational (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC) User has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bubblegumcrunch. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment a bit startled that this has been relisted. The keeps were all evidence based, the deletes were assertions of the "No It's Not" variety. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree with your comment. The keeps are on the basis of "look at all of these unreliable sources" variety.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This page was vandalized, completely erased and replaced by two sentences designed to be a slur. Three minutes later, the page was AFD.  Now, as before, you assert only that sources are "unreliable", without offering more.  There is a standard for reliability on this site that contains several factors, including whether or not a source has an editorial board, publishes regularly in a field or on a topic, etc.  That standard has been met here by several sources.  Not once have you addressed why you consider the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to be an unreliable source.  Similarly, you have never addressed why PopMatters, Americana-UK or The Epoch Times, all of which have editorial personnel and publish regularly, all of which are read by thousands of people all over the world, are somehow "unreliable".  You merely state that they are.  Others have presented clear evidence (such as editorial page links and testimonials by readers of the sources) that demonstrate the sources to be reliable.[User:Bubblegumcrunch|Bubblegumcrunch]] (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Bubble, please remember to assume good faith. Markotb is applying the guidelines as he interprets them. You & I disagree with him. That's why we're here.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Tigerboy, I always assume good faith where it is warranted. I quote, from the Good Faith link you cited: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism)." Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the version I nominated for deletion, which was the version that was reverted to after the vandalism was removed. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your point? My position is very clear. Mark of the Beast has never addressed why he first WENT to the page, only 3 minuets after a vandal blanked the page, to nominate it for deletion. It would take longer than 3 minutes to carefully review the page and its sources in order to reach a proper conclusion as to whether or not notability was met. Yet the nomination occurred 3 minutes after the vanadalism/reversion. That's simply not enough time to make a good faith nomination for deletion, and the timing of the visit and nomination clearly appears to aid a vandal in their desired goal: to eliminate the page.  It was a page that stood unmolested for nearly 3 years. Then a vandal blanks it and replaces it with a slur, which is immediately reverted. Then 3 minutes later, Mark of the Beast appears to nominate the page for deletion. Again, where is the time to review the page? How could a nomination be made in such short time? Why would it be made, on a page that had just been rescued from vandalism? Then after the nomination is made, the vandal reappears to add some language to the reverted page, and that language is reverted again. Mark of the Beast has never answered the questions as to why he went to the page, only 3 minutes after it was vandalized, and chose to nominate it for deletion, only three minutes after a vandal tried to remove the page, etc. His nomination comes sandwiched between two acts of vandalism by the same person, and it is made in a period of time that is simply not sufficient to indicate a good faith nomination. I believe the timing of these acts of vandalism, in relation to Mark of the Beast's nomination for deletion, should render his nomination as questionable, at best, with respect to good faith. I believe the good faith doctrine says as much, expressly. I believe the nomination should be dismissed, especially as the nomination is meritless on the facts. If nothing else, the timing of the nomination appears to be an effort to give the vandal what the vandal wanted, the destruction of the page. I would hope this site would look down upon any efforts that would appear to aid in the service of vandalism.  One does not have to BE a vandal, but to in any way aid a vandal's end should call into question good faith. A nomination for deletion made in 3 minutes or less, following vandalism, fails to meet the standard of good faith.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple reliable sources confirm notability.Herstorybuff (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC) User has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bubblegumcrunch. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment new user joins WP and votes in AfD 3 minutes later. Oh dear.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2011
 * Comment No vandalism that I can see, so I'm gonna go ahead and assume good faith on Herstorybuff's part. I will also state unequivocally that I do not know who Herstorybuff is.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism)."Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom,Kanatonian (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The nom has nothing to do with who, why nominated it but does it meet notability? I would argue it fails. If you can provide arguments as to why not, would be good. Kanatonian (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Multiple reliable sources showing notability have already been cited numerous times above, to include: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, PopMatters, Americana UK, The Epoch Times, The Pittsburgh City Paper, God is in the TV -- all of which have editorial boards and editors and publish regularly, especially in the music industry. The standard for notability has been met.  If you'd like to revise the standard for "reliable source" so that it requires deletion of any artist who wasn't written up ion the NY Times, or so that it defined "reliable" as, "One of these select few sources...(list)", I am sure that can be done.  But as the standard reads now, it has been met here.  In fact, several of the sources cited are quite notable in the indie rock industry, which, after all, is the designed audience for the artist's page.  With all due respect, how can someone who is unfamiliar with the indie rock industry comment on whether one of its sources is reliable.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm refraining from frequent comment, because this just isn't that important in the grand scheme of things - but I would like to suggest that a 100 word review in the non-notable and unreliable Epoch Times does not confer notability, no matter how often the opposing claim is made. By Wikipedia standards, the same claim can be made for the other reviews and mentions-in-passing that are referenced here.  I apologise for the repetition, but notability per Wikipedia standards has not been asserted for this article. Colon el  Tom 11:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just in passing, all articles and reviews cited are detailed, and if you take the time to count the words, you will see that they outnumber 100. Also, there are no "mention-in-passing" sources cited at all, all are pieces written on the artist.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Epoch Times review I was referring to, currently citation 5 in the article, is an 84 word review. The two Post-Gazette citations (currently 6 & 8) are weekly columns on the local music scene.  They also cover the closing of local bars and other local music activity.  These were the 'mention-in-passing's I was referring to. Colon el  Tom 20:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Weak Delete - The AllMusic refs are completely empty of content. Very unusual for the site. The rest of the refs are essentially non-notable sites and blogs. I fixed the refs to make them easier to follow. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentActually, many artists who appear on AllMusic don't even have a picture for their profile, or their albums are listed, but without pictures or credits for the albums, or there are no song snippets to listen to. In fact, Chancellorpink's AllMusic actually includes an electronic-only album that was released for download.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I could change it to a strong delete based on Bubblegumcrunch's insistence. The musician is an attorney who plays music for the fun of it and he has likely paid for whatever coverage he has. No notable sources other than AllMusic have covered him. The artist is non-notable per WP:BAND. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Change it to whatever you like, and say whatever unsubstantiated slurs you like about the artist. My "insistence" was merely to clarify something you said that was inaccurate about what is "very unusual" for AllMusic.  But while here answering your call, I will list the following sources again, all of which are credible, especially in the industry in question, all of which have written in detail about the artist, and two alone of which meet the standard you site: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, PopMatters, Americana UK, The Epoch Times, The Pittsburgh City Paper, Twirl Radio, God is in the TV, Leicester Bangs.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I want to apologize for coming back and posting so often. I promise this will be my last remark on the matter.  The fact is that I manage Chancellorpink and have known him for 25 years, even back when his very first band, Six Gun Jury, received regular rotation airplay in 1988.  He may be an attorney, but he's a hard working musician, and, believe me when I say that he has earned every bit of press coverage and radio airplay he has received.  I wrote his Wikipedia page back in 2009 because he deserves one.  I believe him to be a notable musician.  If the editors here disagree, so be it.  But I do believe that a careful review of the applicable standard, and of the content and nature of the sources writing about this musician, will allow his Wikipedia page to stand.Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Artist has been performing since the late '80s and has released CDs in the past prior to everything going digital. I have one, in fact, which I have also played on both my radio station and on a Canadian one on which I do shows. Yes, he mostly self-promotes, but so do most unsigned indie artists.  There is a musical legacy, time spent with other bands and 22 references on the page.  This is a professional artist and not a vanity project. Ezreal (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment withdrawing keep. Feel that COI issues SPAs etc mean that the case has lost all credibility.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - no substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP - I am a music critic from the UK and discovered Chancellorpink's music three years ago, whilst working for a music website. Since then I have written several positive reviews of his music and have been recruited to write for Clash magazine.  Whilst Wikipedia continues to provide space for countless artists of little or no worth, it would be a travesty to remove one who has a true passion for his art and an ability to convert it.  Should the page be removed then it would be a sad refletion on the credibility of Wikipedia and not Chancellorpink! 80.87.20.140 (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — 80.87.20.140 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'll politely WP:AGF. If you think that this is a notable artist, anonymous editor, I encourage you to add some citations to the article that will demonstrate notability that has not been previously demonstrated.  If you do so, please comment here so that the closing admin and other editors are aware of your additions and can quickly assess them.  I will make the point that subjective assessments of talent, skill et cetera aren't relevant in determining notability per Wikipedia's criteria.
 * To put it another way ...If your articles have already been cited, I encourage you to state which ones are yours. If they haven't been cited, cite them by all means. Colon el  Tom 10:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * CommentI reviewed "Life Like Sad Music" in March 09 on the God Is In The TV site and this has now been archived. I reviewed "Still Life Self Portrait & Cadillac" for the Indie MP3 site in March 10; the site no longer exists.  Therefore, I am able to provide no evidence of these reviews.  However, if you wish to verify my credentials, here are the links (all on Wikipedia) to three other reviews I have written this year:- http://www.clashmusic.com/reviews/glasvegas-euphoric-heartbreak, http://www.clashmusic.com/reviews/fucked-up-david-comes-to-life, http://www.clashmusic.com/reviews/thurston-moore-demolished-thoughts.  Why this debate is even taking place baffles me, Chancellorpink is a credible international artist who is merely expressing his art for the pleasure of others.  If your servers are running out of space, then there are several other unworthy artists I could recommend deleting!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.87.20.140  (talk • contribs)  — 80.87.20.140  (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Internet Archive has snapshots of clashmusic.com. Please post links to the chancellorpink reviews. Gerardw (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read my previous response again, the reviews of Chancellorpink were NOT in Clash as they preceeded my working for them. Here is a link to the God Is In The TV review, which also got picked up by Dailypop: http://www.dailypop.de/index.php/chancellorpink-%E2%80%93-still-life-self-portrait-cadillac/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.87.20.140 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In addition, the link you provided to dailypop contains nothing from which to write a biography.  It might be used to discuss his works, but not himself.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It isn't even a proper review, the phrase "if you click gently on the website link below, you will discover that all the tracks can be listened to and even downloaded" is a bit of a giveaway. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Enough substantial coverage from reliable and independent sources to show notability.Williamdesign (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Williamdesign (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The above is this editor's only contribution to Wikipedia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2011 (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.