Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charmaine (musician) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  15:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Charmaine (musician)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously deleted following AFD discussion. No support to keep then. Non notable singer. Article was recreated by a new user with no substantial change from the deleted article. I listed for db-repost but this was denied for reasons I don't quite understand. Same user has also recreated the articles on the singers two albums, both of which had also been deleted. Dmol (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Meets WP:GNG if not WP:MUSICBIO #1. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gigantic Speedy Keep - If this gets deleted, then GNG is an utter pile of rubbish because it meets all of the criteria. Her music has been significantly reviewed in reliable publications and they are independent from her as well so that means no collusion has occurred.HotHat (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - Though there isn't much about the singer's life, article easily passes notability guidelines due to the coverage she has through reviews of her albums.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 12:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep she definitely has enough reliable third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 15:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:MUSICBIO + WP:GNG. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  18:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to request a WP:SPEEDYCLOSE or a WP:SNOWCLOSE since nom has not edited since the nomination and this should really WP:WITHDRAWN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Question. I'm not sure where these claims of plenty of coverage in reliable publications are coming from; all I see in the article is a lot of blog posts, Geocities, and something called Jesus Freak Hideout that doesn't exactly scream "reliable" to me after poking around on it for a bit.  I'm not sure that all that much has changed since the last discussion resulted in a clear delete result, except that she's got a new record to promote this month.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Reviews in recognized RSes: Jesus Freak Hideout, Indie Vision Music and New Release Tuesday. I don't see a single blog post or geocities. Are you sure you're looking at the right article? As for the last delete discussion, I can't comment on it since I don't know what the sources were like then, but clearly this one has RSes. The coverage of the new record this month helps push the subject over the top in relation to GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite sure, this is used as a source to support biographical details, for instance. Are you sure you're looking at the right one?  I don't see anything that I would consider a reliable source, and I think the article ought to be deleted.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Don't know how I missed that. One reference doesn't preclude the others. I've removed the Geocities link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good call Walter Görlitz, it was just some meaningless biographical information that was already confirmed by other sources.HotHat (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Question. Like Lankiveil, I'm more than a little bemused at all these super-strong-speedy-keep votes above, since I don't see anything to warrant that kind of certainty. We only have citations of any worth from Jesus Freak Hideout, Indie Vision Music and New Release Tuesday; Walter Gorlitz above indicates that these are "recognised" RSes, but looking at them I find that a bit of a stretch. I freely admit I have no particular expertise in this area, which is why I am not !voting delete right now, but I'd appreciate a bit of clarification regarding why we're considering what seem like fairly minor, niche sites reliable. Frickeg (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Christian contemporary music tends to be a niche genre in terms of the overall music scene, though it sells quite well. See WikiProject Christian music/Sources and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christian music/Sources for explanations as to these and other sources.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 13:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'm impressed by the depth of that source list, I am a little taken aback at the apparently very lenient criteria being used to establish a reliable source. Editorial oversight is far from the only thing necessary, especially for a BLP. For a BLP I would generally assume at least some coverage in reliable, mainstream sources. Charmaine has precisely zero coverage outside of niche Christian music websites, and for that reason I'm going to have to go with delete on this one. Frickeg (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a review of her latest album in Christianity Today, which is a "mainstream" source (unless by "mainstream" you mean "non-Christian" which is irrelevant and also unfair). Although this does not inherently infer notability for her but rather for the album, the article does talk about Charmaine herself, which can be used to support this article. Also, the same album was reviewed by HM, which I would not call mainstream but would completely satisfy reliability requirements (a print magazine until a few years ago, editorial oversight, cited in other reliable sources, etc.).-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 18:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen the Christianity Today source. I certainly wouldn't call CT "mainstream", but it's better than the others definitely. (I'm assuming the article is longer than the "preview" I'm seeing.) It should certainly be added to the article as a source. I'd still like to see something in a more general source (a review in a non-Christian publication, for example), but there's probably enough doubt for me at least to switch to neutral, especially since there does seem to be an argument that she meets WP:MUSICBIO (another of those guidelines one inevitably finds outside one's own area of expertise that seems to have an absurdly low threshold for notability, but presumably people find the same about my areas of interest, so). Frickeg (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I found some additional sources. One is a review by Christianity Today, and the other is a reprinting by Crosswalk.com of a CT review.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 16:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete From reviewing the above sources and those in the article, it's clear that the subject of this article has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. Given that this article falls firmly within the scope of WP:BLP, it is essential that it be referenced to high quality sources, and not amateur and niche websites. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No amateur sites listed though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All of the sites in question have official staff and editorial oversight, and are frequently quoted or referenced in other publications such as CCM Magazine, Crosswalk.com, and HM.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 00:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Niche websites referenced by other niche websites are not the high quality sources required by WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Mainstream sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy are needed. Nick-D (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you called them "Niche", I will take that as you don't know what sources to utilized in Christian music nor probably country music. If those source knew they had no reputation for fact checking nor accuracy, then they would take it as a slap-in-the-face, yet turn-the-other-check. See here for "Our Review & Interview Policy" section, and read it.HotHat (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * More sources:
 * Per Indie Vision Music, Charmaine went on a national tour in Australia with Jonathan Thulin:, . HM mentioned that she also went on a national tour with Ryan Stevenson in the United States: . There's also coverage in HM about how her single "Run" was included in Rock Band , as well as a mention that she performed at Creation Festival Northwest.
 * There also is an admittedly niche Christian teen girl print magazine that gave a brief biography of Charmaine back in 2002 .-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 01:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED), and being the support act for another music act certainly doesn't confer notability (quite the opposite in fact). Notability is established by the availability of high quality sources which provided substantive coverage of the topic of the article, and the bar is set at a high level for BLPs. Nick-D (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Its quite sad that some editors don't know a darn thing about Christian music and the sourcing publications in our genre. Yes, NOTINHERITED is a policy and she has Notability per the reviews of her music in Cross Rhythms that was the only United Kingdom Christian music magazine and is still their leading online publication see Cross Rhythms. Also, Christianity Today is the most preeminent publication in all of Christian media, and they reviewed both of her albums. Christian Broadcasting Network is a leading Christian television outlet that has reviewed her second album. John DiBiase the founder of Jesus Freak Hideout reviewed both of her albums, and to the second one awarded a five star rating, which they even chronicle them here. So, it is because two of her albums got significant reviews by reliable publications that she is in fact notable to be included in this encyclopedia. By the way, JFH has been nominated for deletion twice and was kept so they are a reputable source and noteworthy publication to utilize in determining GNG, MUSICBIO and NALBUMS.HotHat (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Being notable has nothing at all to do with being reliable; I also notice that one of the sources used to establish notability was an actual RS, the Guardian, impugning JFH's reliability. I am sympathetic to the idea that certain WikiProjects have their own practices and standards, but in this case I am afraid I find those standards too far from the general requirements for a BLP and notability generally. Frickeg (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Passing No. 1 on MUSICBIO means nothing to you I see, and I am afraid Wikipedia does not care about Christian music nor its sources. Unless, I or a couple of other editors (3family6, Walter Gorlitz and Toa_Nidhiki05) have done work on articles pertaining to Christian music then this project would have virtually nothing worthwhile of Christian music. I have tried and utterly failed to get Christian music, whether it be bands, artist, albums or songs to be accepted here. By virtue of saying that sources such as Christianity Today, Cross Rhythms, HM Magazine, Christian Broadcasting Network, Jesus Freak Hideout, New Release Tuesday and Indie Vision Music are not acceptable sources to prove and satisfy Notability requirements is beyond me. Since, it is the case, I must admit that I have done nothing worthwhile and failed this encyclopedia.HotHat (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am amused by your interpretation of what constitutes a reliable source. May I suggest that rather than convince us that they're not RSes that you instead take the list of sources used in the article to WP:RSN. You already assume we have a bias or some sort of vested interest in this subject and will go to any lengths to keep the article on Wikipedia, but RSN is more likely to be neutral on the subject. If they determine that the sources are not reliable, I'll personally remove them and strike my keep vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going any further down the road of whether particular sources are notable or not, as I agree with Walter that that is a discussion for the RSN. I'm responding to 's comment on notability not being inherited. I did not mean to assert that Charmaine is notable because of these other acts, I was merely supplying sources that talk about her, however briefly. The first two sources about her going on tour I supplied in order to demonstrate that she satisfies criterion #4 of WP:MUSICBIO, receiving non-trivial coverage of "a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." While her tour with Ryan Stevenson might be too brief to warrant notability (though I would ask how we determine if coverage is merely brief rather than trivial), the coverage of her tour in Australia with Jonathan Thulin is certainly not brief or trivial, and so that means that she satisfies criterion #4.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 18:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Jesus Freak Hideout reviewed her newest EP, so three highly reviewed albums 100-percent satisfies MUSICBIO's No. 1 criterion.HotHat (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I have said, and will continue to espouse that if an artists' music is reviewed, as much as, her music has been then it meets with the first criteria per MUSICBIO. Also, it is probably the case that OTHERSOURCESEXIST to confirm notability by another criteria like the editor 3family6 proves with his extensive research. She should have had an article on here three years ago, if other capable editors besides myself, 3family6 and Mr. Walter Gorlitz, would have done their due diligence to research her background more fully. So, my question is if two LP's are notable and one EP then that is not enough evidence, which gives rise to her biographical article should be created because of notability?HotHat (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I found a source directly about Charmaine. For those worried about reliability, BREATHEcast is an affiliate of The Christian Post, has editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking, and is one of the top publications dealing with Christian music in the US.
 * This source notes that she guested on a Jonathan Thulin song that went No. 1 on Billboard's Christian Rock chart. I don't know if a guest appearance alone satisfies criterion #2 on WP:MUSICBIO, but if it does, than Charmaine is supported by that criterion.
 * This source verifies that Charmaine went on a national tour with Rebecca St. James, which further strengthens her support by criterion #4 of WP:MUSICBIO.
 * I wish to comment here that, yes, Charmaine is supported by exclusively Christian oriented sources. But there are lots of notable artists supported only by rock genre or indie genre or country genre or heavy metal genre oriented sources, so I don't see why genre-specific sources are a problem.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 14:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Bona fide notability now exist via a charting at No. 1 on the Christian AC/CHR, which can be found right oh so here. I just want to think Mr. Jonathan Thulin and his song "Dead Come to Life" because it brought Charmaine's Wikipedia biography back to existence.HotHat (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It can't be deleted now that I put two charts on her page. See, she is notable.HotHat (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * CNN Interview in Espanola interview.HotHat (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2014 (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.