Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Chan


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Chan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG and even WP:CREATIVE. None of the sources seem reliable. The NYT "webdenda" ref doesn't even have a byline. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment The subject of this article would prefer it be deleted, FWTW. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I concur that it doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG criteria. Inclusion in a documentary does not meet "an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.". I don't see being involved in the production of a Facebook game as transferring any notability to the subject (even if we were able to establish independent notability for the game). Similarly being a newspaper author does not inherently meet notability guidelines. A case for notability could, however, potentially be made under WP:MUSIC. By the letter of the law iTunes chart does not qualify as a "national music chart." I'm inclined to challenge that and ask: What makes the iTunes chart inferior to a national chart for notability? - Rushyo  Talk  21:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, iTunes isn't Billboard which has a more robust methodology then sales (Incidentically Billboard uses iTunes as part of their tabulation). But furthermore, this subject's work was ranked on iTunes "Holiday" charts. In September. At the moment it has 102 customer ratings.  Considering that September is probably not a gangbuster time for Xmas sales and that the subject promoted this albumn the night before amongst friends, it is not unfair to assume this surge of downloads was anything more than a momentary blip.  This is just puffery via social media.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going on "The lead single "A Christmas Song," reached #25 on the iTunes single charts on its debut." but noted. - Rushyo  Talk  23:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that means anything. There are zillions of categories on iTunes, and there may have been only 25 songs in the Christmas song category to begin with!!  Probably every song in the category "charted."  It's quite meaningless.  You could whistle or yodel a mariachi song into iTunes and have it "chart" for thirty minutes or so. Qworty (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this aforementioned comment goes against some interesting reading I stumbled upon, perhaps you might recognize it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qworty#.22Oh_but_we_are_not_stalkers.2"Oh, and btw, the next time you trash other people's accomplishments, make sure you have accomplishments in your own lives that are bigger. Oh, 35, 40, 50 years old and don't have any that are bigger? Recognize that this is the real source of your "suffering" and learn to accept reality. Reality is not a tarot fantasy--reality is what is true right now and has been true for years. Qworty 23:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)" Just thought that was an interesting read. --69.204.251.91 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That statement is quite explicit that it is the singles chart not the 'holiday chart', which is a separate statement. I've never referred to the latter statement and it requires a leap of logic to conclude I did. - Rushyo   Talk  13:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't have her name anywhere in it. Qworty (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I checked the source in question and there was zero mention about "The lead single "A Christmas Song," reached #25 on the iTunes single charts on its debut."  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ADVERT, WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:GNG, just to name a few.  If you look closely at the sourcing, you'll note that it is all subpar.  All of it is one form of advertising or another.  Advertising is not independent coverage, obviously.  Bear in mind WP:42.  It goes against policy for entities to create advertising around a person and then try to put that person on Wikipedia on that basis.  That's not how notability works. Qworty (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of WP:42 was recently noted here, so not sure your qualifiers have been interpreted are not also mistaken. As mentioned here. Also, the references that remain on the current article are not advertising, so unsure of the supposition. --69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed reflist error caused by this comment, IRWolfie- (talk)

What on earth has been going on here! I was alerted to this situation through fans to check this dialogue out. I am the subject at hand. Fans maintain the page. I would actually prefer no Wikipedia entry. I would like a copy of this log to be remitted to me to add to the investigation thanks! Rosepetalcrush has been logged numerous vandalizations on the page and so I think deletion is smart! and on other web entities for libelous issues. Feel free to delete! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizbethxq (talk • contribs) 02:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This woman has slandered my name on Facebook and has mentioned this page to me several times in her rants against me. She is in charge of this page, not her fans. This woman is reporting me to the NYPD police for no reason. I have done nothing wrong in editing this article about her, and she know's it. She dislikes my comments about her music and is reporting me to the police because she cannot handle the truth. This is very upsetting. I would appreciate you not aid her in this 'investigation.' However, I am simply making a request. In the end you should do what you like. I'd simply appreciate some consideration on my behalf. User:RosePetalCrush —Preceding undated comment added 02:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There should be a block of any and all accounts making legal threats. I don't know why that wasn't done long ago.  I am so sorry you are going through this intolerable situation. Qworty (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Qworty - This is the subject at hand - do not listen to RosePetalCrush. She is using this wikipedia page as a method of communication and to gain the attention of Elizabeth Chan through her edits originally made on this page, not to meaningfully contribute to the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RosePetalCrush. Please delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizbethxq (talk • contribs) 03:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Qworty - Trust me. Delete the page. I need to rid of this person from trying to contact me or gain my attention.


 * Qworty, thanks for replying. You've been a real help with this mess. This is the most bizarre situation I've ever been in on the internet. RosePetalCrush —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I have no desire to speak with Lizbethxq. I'm simply stating my situation with this woman. --RosePetalCrush (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC) I am stepping away from this topic and will make no further comments on the talk pages at the request of a mod. I don't wish to cause a headache with the staff here. --RosePetalCrush (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Marginal notability plus seemingly legitimate request from the subject to delete = Delete. First Light (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per First Light. Andreas  JN 466 13:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject's notability based on the criteria for WP:MUSIC continue beyond the ending of Failure Club. Publish dates of independent sources about the subject followed her participation on the series. -Has performed music on Failure Club, published works of which were featured in a documentary (Yahoo! Screen) -Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio station (Townsquare) -Has been featured subject of a substantial broadcast across national radio and TV network (Townsquare/Duluth Minnesota & Tribune Broadcasting) -Has a prolific catalogue of music (200 Christmas Songs) -Has charted on a national chart (#4 iTunes) --69.204.251.91 (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — 69.204.251.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No. You don't understand how Wikipedia notability works.  Everything you're citing here is either primary sourcing, which cannot be used to establish notability, or unverified sourcing, which also cannot be used.  These are the rules in a nutshell: WP:42. Qworty (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, your mistaken again, as those sources are independent of the subject. Again, Your incorrect interpretation of WP:42 was recently noted here, so not sure your qualifiers have been interpreted are not also mistaken. As mentioned here.--69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed reflist error caused by this comment, IRWolfie- (talk)
 * Looking at the reference list, none of those references are primary sources from the subject - or unverified. She does not work at the NYTimes, Yahoo!, Tribune, Or Townsquare Media. --69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those sources don't establish notability. They are just passing mentions.  Please read WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Qworty (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not all passing mentions. Read what you sent. These do not qualify. Plus there is a glaring omission to the fact that she was featured in 11 separate documentary long form pieces about her life. Docu-series, not reality show. Docu-series meaning a serialized portrayal of a single individual. Despite continued efforts to redact this very large aspect of the subject's notability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a "docu-series"--it's a series of video advertisements put up by Morgan Spurlock to try to sell records. That isn't independent coverage by a long shot. Qworty (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You obviously need a primer in the definition of advertisements. You like to throw it around like it's a bad word or something. Here since you love reading, Read the Fremantle buyers guide - which is a guide used to sell Television programming from Fremantle. You can't sell advertisements to advertisers by the way. http://www.fmescreenings.com/Brand/99347/failure-club Please take note of the genre: Factual, based on true stories. The runtime stipulating the show will be re-edited into 30 minute pieces for television.
 * I'm sorry, but your link cannot be used. It does not mention Elizabeth Chan in any way, shape, or form. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The genre of music in which Chan is focused is also of interest to her peers, (I forgot the comma - she is covered on many Christmas music blogs and radio stations, but those sources were deemed unfit for this article - despite the fact that the genre is niche.), She is also prominently featured on ASCAP.com, the national songwriters consortium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The genre is notable. She is not.  See WP:NOTINHERITED. Qworty (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Placed a comma to elaborate my original note. --69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI should be acknowledged. While those with a coi are not prohibited from participating in AfD discussions, it would be helpful if this article's sole defender would acknowledge the coi that has been alleged by an editor other than myself. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a sole defender. Blanketed statement, please read up and note other editors that have weighed in on this topic. You love your blanket statements! --69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a "weak keep" that got argued down is such a ringing endorsement. Now do you mind answering the question? Qworty (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Guess you didn't see this. Again, blanketed statements.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Chan&oldid=526554209, although this message was not integrated within this talk section for some reason. Makes me think you have COI with the subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, please answer the question. Qworty (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to answer, just a fan. You reverted a change when I noticed the first instance of vandalism and accused me of an Edit War, when I was just trying to be helpful. So now, I've watched you lambast the subject arbitrarily, side with the vandal. Feel that someone should defend the subject page. That isn't a hater.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.251.91 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The anonymous IP defending this article is a WP:SPA per an extensive editing history and has been accused by an editor other than myself of WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What 69.204.251.91 should try to understand is that we require reliable sources. Reality shows just don't fit the bill.  What about radio shows? Morning Edition maybe, but not the Morning Zoo.  The NYT source as I noted above is not reliable because it doesn't have a byline.  It doesn't even merit inclusion per WP:NEWSBLOG.  ASCAP, blogs, etc. all come up short as well.  If the subject is notable we require reliable sources to tell us why the subject is noteworthy.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Qworty is an editor who has defended the vandalism of the page of the subject, which calls into question the personal feelings towards the subject. Not editing with a neutral view and also mistaking WP tenets as called out on original article talk page here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_Chan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.251.91 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Differences of opinion concerning Wikipedia's notability requirements is NOT vandalism. Learn what vandalism is.  Tell us how this perosn meets the requirements at WP:MUSIC.  Read WP:VANDALISM.  Get off your high horse.  216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, actually that's not what is in question. Notability requirements. Read up re: WP:MUSIC.

I have deleted the conversation I had with User 69.204.251.91. They didn't have anything to do with the deletion of this article. User 69.204.251.91 was correct in their comments towards me. I am removing myself completely from this topic. Thanks. --RPC 02:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt article and block IP SPA. The sources just aren't there, and neither is the adult behavior from the IP. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Insufficient sources; I did an independent sweeps of US and advertising-related publications and did not find enough. But my hunch is this person will be notable in future in the advertising & marketing world.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. In cases where the subject of a biography is in the grey area between what we consider notable or not, and that subject does not wish to have a Wikipedia article about them, we should defer to their preference without hesitation.  Peacock (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Keep" Agree that case for notability could, however, potentially be made under WP:NMUSIC based on the fact she was a subject on a documentary that was widely seen. Both her album and single has charted on iTunes, which is a significant music chart today. Has also received radio rotation airplay in the United States. Has been broadcast on a TV network in NYC on a significant segment focused on her Christmas music work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.69.248 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — 70.113.69.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - sourcing is thin, iTunes charting is not an easy indicator to judge, BLP issues have been and continue to be present, the subject has requested deletion (which we do take into account as one of many factors in borderline cases)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Subject has requested deletion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2012 (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.