Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth South (singer)


 * 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 Despite the Facebook campaign, no policy-based rationales for keeping the article have been presented. Consensus in favor of deletion is clear. Huon (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth South (singer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most sources in the article are either affiliated with her or too brief to count as non-trivial.

The article from The News&Observer is probably okay as a source, but the contents of it seems to indicate that this was her 15 minutes of fame. As far as I can tell she has not had significant coverage outside the contest she won, so this seems to fall in under WP:BLP1E. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete for now and draft & userfy if necessary as the best I found was this. SwisterTwister   talk  05:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - This artist has had more than 15 minutes of fame. More legitimate news sources have been added such as ABC news and Ryan Seacrest news, N& O, and various blogs. The amount of fame is not a reason for deletion anyway and that is a shallow criticism because this artist continues to be a significant person with over 11 million views currently on a more recent video released by Ryan Seacrest and ABC news. Not to mention the fact that whoever Won the best cover of "Let It Go" in a Ryan Seacrest contest should go down in history as significant always as that is a significant accomplishment by this artist that no other artist will ever attain. Also, this artist wrote a song "I Love You" that the greatest country star Emmy winner Vince Gill sang a duet with her and a music video on. This also makes her significant and much more than "15 minutes of fame" person. Let's not give into vain thought as to what makes a person significant and worthy in this world. This artist has done more than many artists whose pages are now on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehrji45mx (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this will still need better sourcing (preferably third-party) about her and there's simply not enough with the iTunes links and such taking almost half of it (I know, I know, it's to mention her discography but it's still not third-party coverage). SwisterTwister   talk  05:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This page has more than enough third party and news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehrji45mx (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Previous post moved as to not break up the header of this page. Bjelleklang - talk 12:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all; of the 31 links currently in the article, the overwhelming majority are related to her:
 * Her own site
 * iTunes
 * Her employers website
 * Facebook and other social media
 * Reviews or brief mentions; mostly of her video with multiple princesses or of her winning the competition.
 * All of these fail the requirement on having reliable sources, and at least one ("From the Chair") doesn't have a clear connection to the article. If she is noteworthy as you say, please go through Biographies of living persons (preferably the whole page, not just that section) and find proper, reliable sources. Of the few remaining sites there is perhaps one (News&Observer) that appears to satisfy the requirements (although it is regional and the article was a blog piece), but more is needed for the article to have a chance at being kept. WP:BLP1E exists for a good reason, and there is nothing here that seems to suggest that doesn't fall outside that rule. She has made some music albums as well as other videos, but the only reason she seems to be getting attention is because she won a contest she didn't even enter.
 * And please avoid attacking people. SwisterTwister does a great job keeping AfDs in system, and if you should be mad at anyone it should be me as I nominated this page in the first place. Accusations such as the one you made have a tendency to boomerang right back at the accuser, so please be civil. Bjelleklang -  talk 12:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW and FWIW in case you missed it, this author who now confirms it as being the IP (look at the history who also bombed me with different words. Cheers, and thanks to, one of my favorite longtime colleagues, for tagging a warning.) SwisterTwister   talk  19:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. A classic case of bombarding an article with dozens of references, perhaps in the hope of making it look well sourced, until one actually clicks on the links and looks at those references. Doing so, it turns out that they are YouTube videos, FaceBook, several pages on her own web site, entries on iTunes, the web site of the school she teaches at, at least one page which doesn't even mention her, brief pages not giving her substantial coverage, etc etc, and just one news report in a local newspaper about one incident, when one of her YouTube videos won a contest. I searched for better sources, and found none. For example, the first few hits from a Google search were her YouTube account, one of her YouTube videos, the Wikipedia article about her, her Facebook account, two pages on her own web site, and Twitter. There seems to be no evidence anywhere of her coming anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, there are several news articles and blogs well sourced on the page. She falls into the requirement for being notable on Wikipedia and that is having aired on TV and she has. People do not have to be "Superstars" to be considered notable. That is like saying only the really famous are worthy people. We must put a stop to this shallow and pressurized thinking in our society. It's a poison plain and simple to feel that pressure of having to be Superstars. There is plenty of room for people like Elizabeth South who has touched so many hearts with her music to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehrji45mx (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC) This is an artist and artists have youtube pages and iTunes. Also, there are lots of sources aside from her website. There is no link that does not mention her on here. And there are entire full articles written on her - not briefly. It seems you have not looked at the links. There are many other artists on Wikipedia who have only one resource and less famous than her and they are accepted. If you believe that someone has to be a "superstar" to be on Wikipedia? Wikipedia clearly states that if an artist has been on National TV, they qualify as notable. This artist ran in rotation on a National Music television station for a good amount of time. She played on the same station as other notable artists - alongside and with Vince Gill, one of the most famous musicians of all time. Not only did she air on Music TV, but she was featured several times on one of the top TV shows in Nashville, TN. This article has MORE than enough News articles and resources. ABC NEWS, N & O, blogs, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehrji45mx (talk • contribs)
 * Previous post moved from the top of the page. Bjelleklang - talk 21:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again; take a look at WP:RS. Also read WP:N and the General Notability Guideline. Being an artist, being famous, appearing on TV and lots of other stuff doesn't make you notable. It does however indicate that you _might_ be notable, but notability can only be indicated by having multiple reliable sources writing about you. Being on iTunes or Youtube doesn't matter; I can probably find myself on both venues if I look hard enough, but that doesn't make me famous in any way. If there are lots of sources available, please list them for us if they are reliable; ie. with editorial oversight, not related to her and not local, and also if they can show that she doesn't come under the section for people only known for a single event. Bjelleklang -  talk 21:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think people need to grow up and stop being petty. Elizabeth South is a genuine person, and she's a awesome singer with many accolades. She is deserving of a Wikipedia page because of the sources in which relate to her. She's amazing and she's going to one day smash it really big! Keep Elizabeth South on Wikipedia!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxrobbo90 (talk • contribs) — Maxrobbo90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep.Elizabeth South is a singer, teacher, and musician. Many albums on iTunes.  A duet with Vince Gill. A teacher of Elementary School music. 11 million plus You Tube views.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.182.70 (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure i have this in the right place but I am not sure why this is even up gor deletion. The information in here is accurate and worthy to be listed in Wikipedia. I really hope you reconsider your actions. Elizabeth definitely belongs in here and personally has moved my spirit and keeping it here will definitely help others! Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selectman13 (talk • contribs) — Selectman13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You seriously need to get a life!! It is truly pathetic that you have such a thing against Elizabeth that you would campaign just to delete her Wikipedia page. I've got news for you buddy, you are the ONLY one who doesn't think what you're doing is completely ridiculous! You don't like her music? Fine. You don't like her voice? Fine. There are many artists I don't like, but I don't try to delete their Wikipedia page! Also, the reasons you have given for deleting this page are some of the worst I have ever seen! You say she hasn't had enough coverage to deserve a Wikipedia page? Well I beg to differ. Search "Elizabeth South" in Google. If you don't think any of that counts as coverage, then I don't know how you graduated Primary School And you say she isn't "famous enough" to have a Wiki page? 1) Fame doesn't decide whether you have a Wikipedia page. If someone thinks you have earned a Wikipedia page, they will create you a Wikipedia page. It doesn't matter if you are known world wide, or have a small fan base in one country, if you deserve a Wikipedia page, you get a Wikipedia page. 2) I think having numerous reliable sources write articles on you, appearing on Zuus TV, winning a national competition, having over 15million hits between two videos on YouTube, realising 12 CD's and singles, having 22k Twitter followers, 26k Facebook followers and 77k YouTube subscribers can put you in the class of "fame" Elizabeth has so many accolades they're hard to count! She was worked her heart and soul out for her music. And most importantly she has touched thousands, if not, millions of hearts with her beautiful music, majestic voice and kind and caring personality, and yet she remains humble and never puts anyone else down with her success! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker97 (talk • contribs) — Tombaker97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC) There is too much evidence to post here proving Elizabeth belongs here! As I said before, just Google her name, there are numerous articles about her. Anyway, I shouldn't even need to provide any further evidence that Elizabeth deserves her Wikipedia page for two reasons. 1) It doesn't matter how many sources you have writing articles on you. If someone thinks you have earned a Wikipedia page, they will create you a Wikipedia page, no matter how many articles have been written about you. 2) Elizabeth has had numerous articles written about her, if you want me to link them all here, fine I will but it would take me a hell of a long time. Just because not every article has been inculded in the Wikipedia page doesn't instantly mean she doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. All it means is that whoever made the page for Elizabeth just didn't include every article written about her. You can argue all you want about Elizabeth not deserving this Wikipedia page, but the fact is, no matter what you say she deserves to be on Wikipedia. You haven't even got a genuine arguement. The only reason you say she doesn't deserve to be on Wiki is because you aren't a fan of hers, which is the worst excuse to delete a Wikipedia page I have ever seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker97 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sufficiently robust sources. The addition of so many trivial sources may have dulled my judgement but I don't see notability here.  Velella  Velella Talk  22:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a comment to everyone coming here after seeing the discussions on her Facebook page: Please take a minute before posting to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia requirements, and contribute to the article if you have any reliable sources to add. Arguing against deletion without posting links or other evidence that isn't verifiable by others doesn't help the discussion at all, and won't prevent the article from being deleted. If the article can be improved it's great; but if not it kind of proves the point in that it doesn't belong here. What makes Wikipedia special is the fact that there are requirements; otherwise it would just be another directory of no importance at all. Bjelleklang -  talk 10:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per poor claim to notability and sources. James' assessment of ref-bombing seems accurate. Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2015 (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.