Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie White


 * 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. As pointed out she meets criteria 2 of Notability (music) and MediaForest is listed at Record charts as being acceptable for Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ellie White

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources - and, if I may, I'll ignore YouTube and Facebook links - largely fall into two categories:


 * cruft, cruft, cruft, cruft
 * blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post (if not strictly speaking blogs, some of these fall under the equally dismissible rubric of "tabloid trash")
 * Oh, and there's an interview in a baby magazine where Ellie tells us all we wanted to know about her pregnancy and the life of her newborn.

In other words, there is precious little here satisfying the "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and independent of the musician or ensemble itself" bit of WP:MUSBIO, and no reliable sources indicating the subject meets any of the guideline's other components. - Biruitorul Talk 16:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - Most if not all the sources I've found are pretty shit notability-wise, None are even worth adding to the article, Fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources added as well as the comments below, I didn't think New Forest was a legit source but if it is then it may aswell be kept, Crappish sources are better than no sources at all. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally fails the notability requirements for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Maybe fails the notability requirements for a musician but for having "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I base this on his 849,000 likes on Facebook may enough for a keep.Sofiamar (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, Facebook likes are still not considered evidence of anything – unless reported by third-party sources, which is not the case. - Biruitorul Talk 17:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep no way that Media Forest could be referred to as "cruft", their charts actually are the official record charts in Romania and an artist who, as noted in the article, ranked several times in their charts including a second place in 2011 certainly passes several criteria of MUSICBIO. Cavarrone 05:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Even accepting, for argument's sake, that Media Forest is a reliable source, that really doesn't do much for this individual. For starters, she never rose above 43rd place in their rankings, as far as I can tell. But that's a relatively minor point; the more salient one has to do with the fact that no guideline suggests one's mere presence in a chart proves notability. Sure, it can contribute to a claim of notability, but this is after all an encyclopedia, not a directory of every musician who has ever charted, regardless of WP:BASIC ("significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"). Even WP:MUSBIO a) notes that people filling at least one of the criteria " may be notable" (i.e., are not automatically notable) and b) reiterates WP:BASIC as the very first criterion ("multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself"). If no outside source has bothered to grant a musician even the semblance of significant coverage, there is no reason we should be doing so.
 * Meanwhile, I've stripped out the unsourced or poorly sourced material. If that's all there can be said about the subject, again, it's not something worth keeping around. - Biruitorul Talk 17:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While you are certainly allowed to not consider MUSICBIO a valid guideline, as long as MUSICBIO was not deprecated you have to accept that editors commonly use to consider notable musicians who charted, and especially musicians who ranked second in a national chart. And this should be even more clear as you recently started a number of similar AfDs using the same rationale (artists who charted in the Romanian Top-10 or so but whose current coverage is poor) and they ended with keep outcomes . At some point, your keeping to nominate for deletion successful artists who ranked in the Romanian top 10 could be considered disruptive and pointy. Also, your bold "cleanup"  in the middle of a deletion discussion seems to me very inopportune (to be fair), especially as you removed the second place of her song I noted in my rationale  as well as other decently sourced stuff you may consider "cruft" but others maybe not. Cavarrone  22:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer to deal in facts, not speculation. To wit:
 * I have absolutely nothing against WP:MUSBIO; I think it's a very useful tool for gauging musicians' notability. It's just that I also pay attention to WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and the very first point of WP:MUSBIO, all of which explicitly call for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". Nothing in WP:MUSBIO invalidates that call, and rightly so: without significant external coverage of individuals, there really is no reason for us to be providing standalone articles on them.
 * Yes, I performed a bold cleanup because, frankly, I would rather not have us be indefinitely clogged with yet more uncited dreck. If you think I went too far in places, please, go ahead and edit the article–while keeping in mind WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:BURDEN and all other relevant policies.
 * As for this link, it's emblematic for the kind of poor coverage plaguing the long version of this article. It comes from an outfit called "Agenția de Presă Mondenă" - "VIP press agency", in other words, a gossip aggregator. Current headlines from this esteemed outfit include "The hottest couple in showbiz! She has a wasp's waist, he has a muscular abdomen!"; "Look how sexy Andreea Manta is two months after she gave birth!"; "Anca Pop and bachelor Andrei Andrei, love on the sand, filmed from a drone!"; "How Anda Adam's pregnancy is going! Here's how the artist feels". I could go on, but I think the point is clear: this is a site peddling tabloid gossip, and we debase our currency by resorting to quoting such an outfit.
 * In sum: no reliable source has bothered to cover this individual in any depth, a couple of raw listings have her charting in the 40s and the 90s, and one utterly discreditable site claims she made second place for a day. Really, if that's the level of coverage that exists (and it does seem to be the case), the argument for deletion remains solid. - Biruitorul Talk 00:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming Agenția de Presă Mondenă has fabricated the news? ...including the screenshot from the Media Forest website which documents the second place? Sorry, I don't buy such a conspiracy theory and I am restoring this material. About the rest, your long explanation is just confirming my "speculation": you are nominating Romanian dance artists who clearly meet several points of MUSICBIO (which is not a tool, it actually is an established notability guideline as well as GNG and the others) with the rationale they fail GNG. Your claim you have nothing against MUSICBIO is contradicted by the current AfD and by a number of failed AfDs you recently started. While I respect your views but if you disagree about MUSICBIO criteria being notability criteria, you should discuss your concerns in the MUSICBIO talk page instead of starting AfDs about top10 artists. For sure, you should not blame and badger editors who vote to keep the page "per MUSICBIO" as long as MUSICBIO is met and it is still a valid notability guideline. Cavarrone 07:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're putting words into my mouth and poisoning the well at the same time. No, I don't claim the "news" (if you can call it that) is fabricated, but that it's from an unquotable source. There are many sources we don't quote, even if they relay accurate information; see Reliable sources/Noticeboard for the lengthy discussions that go on about this. A gossip aggregator plainly seems to fall into the category of the unquotable. - Biruitorul Talk 13:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -- disregarding Cavarrone's lawyering above, there is absolutely nothing in the article (including in the original form) that would satisfy the universal or particular notability guidelines. The sources that were trimmed are chaff. Dahn (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To expand: the crux of the contrived keep argument is that Ellie White satisfied MUSICBIO because she came second in the "Media Forest Chart", as per MUSICBIO's definition that subjects may be notable if they get "a single or album on any country's national music chart." Media Forest, mind you, is no such chart: it is not a record of sales, it is a private-run, paid-for, and self-sourced ranking of airplay on a number of radio stations (from its own description, as pasted into the article: "The company provides a service in which artists and musicians Purchase a subscription that provides them real time information on broadcast channels, which have an Internet broadcast interface"). That it is to say: Media Forest is, itself, cruft; its entry on wikipedia is shameless advertising. One wonders if they and their employees are not being paid to enhance the exposure of aspiring artists on wikipedia as well. Dahn (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I want to emphatically address Cavarrone's misinformation above: Media Forest is not, and never was, anything closely resembling "the official charts in Romania". For the official (and defunct) charts, look no further than Romanian Top 100. The claim that Media Forest is in any way the current national chart is sourced exclusively to that article, and the source (Media Forest's own page...) doesn't even verify that claim. Who added it to the text, btw? Possibly the same IP who gave us this cruft as well. Dahn (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Replying to the emphatic fuss above: most of the chart companies are generally private-run and paid-for (while I have no idea about what you actually intend for "self-sourced"), they are not public institutions and generally earn from their researches. Nothing in your extended analysis suggests Media Forest datas are unreliable or that Media Forest is not "a country's national music chart", it is recognized as reliable by WP:CHART and is marked as the only "recommended chart" for Romania. The point they offer an extended service for pay (real time airplay monitoring) does not mean in any way, shape, or form they are unreliable nor it is something so rare (eg. the leading company in this field AFAIN, Nielsen, offers the same and additional services for their subscribers ).  Cavarrone  06:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you should have no problem finding as an independent reliable source that even so much as suggests Media Forest is in anyway "the official chart". For now, your claim is self-sources, and, as a Romanian speaker, I could find absolutely no source stating this claim -- not even Media Forest seems to spell it out anywhere. But do prove me wrong. Dahn (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's probably telling that you still don't know by this stage what "self-sourced" means -- it means that wikipedia doesn't trust a commercial source to describe itself accurately. Carlsberg is probably not the best beer in the world just because Carlsberg says it is; Media Forest is probably not the relevant national chart just because it itself hints at that. Dahn (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with that, but sadly I have to repeat myself again as apparently you didn't take my point and I suspect you are giving a different meaning to the word "official" against me. Quoting myself above, Media Forest is "a country's national music chart" as prescribed by MUSICBIO, recognized as reliable by WP:CHART and marked as the only "recommended chart" for Romania (nor there are other Romanian charts listed as acceptable charts), and in this sense it is "the official chart" and the only chart WE currently apply and use for Romania, ie WE designed it as the official source for our scope and our purposes, period. That's what interests me, not some futile discussions about being "the best beer of the world". Generally speaking, I would take with a pinch of salt any claim about any chart being "the official chart" for a country (not even Billboard or Nielsen charts are THE OFFICIAL charts in this sense, let alone Romanian Top 100), and if you read my vote-rationale such as "Romania officially designed Media Forest as their official chart record company" sorry, but it was not what I intended to say.  Cavarrone  11:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Who added it there, based on what rationale, and why out of all available charts? As for the rule, it says that we should go with a national chart -- all other criteria not being met, as they are not in met in this case. But that is not the national chart, is it? Dahn (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First question, to make the long story short, its inclusion depends from the methodology used to compile the charts, MF's methodology (you can find described in their website) is considered serious, others you will find in WP:BADCHARTS not. Second point, yes, the Romanian branch of MF (www.mediaforest.ro) provides several specific national charts,  ranging from daily to annual basis (otherwise it would not even be the recommended chart for this country).  Cavarrone  15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Its inclusions depends on the whim of the user who added it. Was its inclusion even discussed, and assessed against other national charts? who determined its reliability and reputation when they chose it as the automatic successor for the official national chart? What outside source other than itself discusses its reliability and cultural relevancy, so that we may perhaps have the discussion now? Because you see: you're asking all of us simply submit to the rankings of a company who may, for all we know, been added as "acceptable" by its own staff. And also: the "national" charts on which this based and their methodology are about product exposure, not about sales or other objective criteria as to who people prefer; whatever it is, it is not the undeniable proof of popularity and cultural relevance that was the Romanian Top 100, which stood for the Romanian correspondent of the UK Singles Chart. Dahn (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just reminding you that what you call "product exposure" actually addresses the criterium 11 in WP:MUSICBIO. Their methodology is described here (see the various sections). Cavarrone 16:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Something confusing here.... I translated this page from the Romanian. It was accurate and essentially the same page as the Romanian but in English. The sources are the same Romanian sources too. How is it that these same sources which have been on the Romanian page for years are all of a sudden crap and no good? I don't see a history of this type of debate on the Romanian page. If they are good there how are they not be good here? We need to restore this page back to the former proper translated page that I previously created. The current page is terrible and doesn't even list her history in DJ Project. Is that too in doubt? Come on people this has all gone insane. Ant75 (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be to do with the fact that English wikipedia has strict and elaborate quality standards, demands, and policies, whereas Romanian wikipedia has not even minimal enforcement of quality. Though yes, you ignored even policies that function there, those policies are not enforced there, at all. Dahn (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Media Forest have elaborated the official Romanian music charts for some years in the middle of the 2000s (based on airplay) since 2010 amended Kraxler (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC) and have been recognized as such in our list of official charts, accepted to use for WP:MUSICBIO #2. They went out of business some time ago, and there are now no official charts in Romania. However, archives of the official charts from 2011 (among others) have been preserved and are still accessable. amended. The firm that left in 2010 was Nielsen Corporation. Kraxler (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)  To question the validity of a guideline is not appropriate at an AfD. That must be made at the guideline's page. Here can be only stated whether an article passes or fails the guideline. In this case, as a question of fact, the subject passes. Period. Kraxler (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Except the case isn't closed. Where's the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? And who made Media Forest "accepted", other than one (possibly paid) user's whim? - Biruitorul Talk 17:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The significant coverage is further down, as is an explanation of the officiality of the charts. Accusing others of paid editing without a trace of evidence is WP:ABF. I suggest you calm down a bit. Kraxler (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - musician with a #2 hit passes WP:MUSICBIO #2, that alone would be sufficient o keep the article except in a case when there is absolutely no coverage anywhere. That's the current consensus on charting musicians, like it or not. In this case there is actually enough coverage to pass any additional requirement, see Ellie White, ponturi pentru proaspetele mămici, Ellie White lansează videoclipul piesei Sete de Noi, în premieră pe Libertatea.ro!, Actorul George Piştereanu apare în noul videolclip a lui Ellie White, Ellie White lansează la miezul nopţii, pe Libertatea.ro, piesa "Sete de noi", Ellie White relansează moda hiturilor cântate în limba română, Ellie White este mai difuzată decât Antonia, Raluka şi Delia Matache, Ellie White revine în forță cu un super hit! Vara aceasta dansăm pe “Zi ceva”! and so on... This nomination, after so many times being told that charting musicians are notable, and seeing the huge coverage in Romanian newsmedia, must be considered frivolous. I suggest Biruitorul WP:Drop the stick mow. Kraxler (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes "Media Forest" an accurate gauge of chart positions? Who gave them an authoritative position?
 * What makes Libertatea, the epitome of a tabloid, a quotable source? And did you bother even considering what some of their article titles mean? Like the first one: "Ellie White, tips for new mothers". Yes, eminently quotable encyclopedic material.
 * I'm still waiting for non-cruft, non-tabloid, authoritative sources indicating notability. You may consider that "frivolous", but WP:MUSICBIO demands no less. - Biruitorul Talk 17:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just stop wasting our time. There are 135 discusiions in the log today. The above questions indicate that there may be a WP:Competence problem here. But that can be debated only at WP:ANI. Kraxler (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and Anda Adam, Ellie White, 3 Sud Est, la Revelionul în aer liber din Ploieşti, Ruxandra Dragomir şi Ellie White, în formă maximă după o oră de sport şi aerobic, Anda Adam şi Ellie White, travesti la „Te cunosc de undeva“, ELLIE WHITE a născut o fetiţă, Ce SUPERSTIŢII au Giulia Anghelescu, Diana Matei, Andreea Mantea şi Ellie White de când sunt ÎNSĂRCINATE, Ellie White este în CULMEA fericirii! A aflat SEXUL celui de-al doilea COPIL, how many do you want? Kraxler (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a volunteer project; no one is obligated to contribute. As long as a nomination is not patently frivolous, I am perfectly entitled to make a case and push the case until such time as the discussion closes. Idle threats and misguided insults will not deter me from doing so.
 * 2) I think the headlines of the "sources" you've adduced say it all:


 * "Ellie White [et al.] at an open-air New Years' concert in Ploiești"
 * "RD and Ellie White, in top shape after an hour of aerobics"
 * "AA and Ellie White, cross-dressing on [some show]"
 * "ELLIE WHITE gives birth to a daughter"
 * "What SUPERSTITIONS Ellie White et al. have while PREGNANT"
 * "Ellie White is AS HAPPY as can be! She found out the SEX of her second child"
 * I think these speak for themselves. Yes, they mention this individual, but they are in no way evidence of encyclopedic notability, they are tabloid chatter (yes, even respectable outlets can have that), routine announcements, cruft, above all unquotable. (No actual article would mention this kind of trivia.)
 * No real evidence of notability has emerged from this discussion, just a lot of noise, flanked by corporate spam masquerading as a valid substitute for a legitimate chart. - Biruitorul Talk 20:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * She's an entertainer, and she's entertaining the Romanians well enough. And, lest we forget, she had a number2 hit in the official charts of Romania. Kraxler (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For the "officiality" of the Media Forest charts see Romanian Top 100. The latter were official until 2012, and have been compiled by Media Forest since 2010. They are still broadcast by Romanian Kiss FM. this tells you how the current Media Forest charts are compiled, they have an even broader basis than the Romanian Top 100. As has been pointed out, airplay is another WP:MUSICBIO criterion, it's # 11, and Ellie White passes that without any doubt. Kraxler (talk) 01:49, 4 August 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.