Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiona Sit


 * 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.  

While normally closing an AfD you participated in is bad form, I think that I'll be forgiven. The results of this debate was Keep and a pat on the back to everyone who improved the article. - brenneman (t) (c)  23:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Fiona Sit
Originally speedy deleted, restored by Tony Sidaway without notifying User:Brookie or bringing to AfD per Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy. Completing process for him.

Does not have an allmusic entry, Google does not appear to demostrate she satisfies WP:MUSIC, her website doesn't help me, but perhaps will help others with more character sets installed. Delete unless further information provided per WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:MUSIC. brenneman (t) (c) 13:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not on allmusic, no label details on Amazon (and a user-supplied cover image at that). Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Badlydrawnjeff's research. Although this is unverifiable to English readers, I guess it counts as countering systemic bias. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification on the language, the three album releases are linked via English-language sites. --badlydrawnjeff 16:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Why?  I believe she actually meets WP:MUSIC with two albums on Warner Music in their Asian/Hong Kong division.  The article is only a stub at the moment, and if I get an opportunity before someone else does, I'll add that information, but it appears she's got that major label support in HK needed to reach our notability standards.  --badlydrawnjeff 14:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, here's a news report on her selling 25,000 copies and getting a gold record . Speedy deleting a "best seller" is obviously way out of process and there no reason an undeleter should feel the need to place it on AFD. Kappa 14:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm, just as one person can be wrong about deleting something, one person can be wrong about restoring it. We bring it to AfD so that we can all have a look, and if the article is kept and improved by having information added, no harm done.  It's hubris otherwise.  I'd note that I still can't confirm from the link given that she meets WP:MUSIC, being monolingual and all. -  brenneman (t) (c)  14:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK good point. Take 《“F”Debut》就賣了超過25000張（金唱片） to babelfish, if your fonts support it. Anyway it's a news report, so she's featured prominently in major media. Kappa 15:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Here are her Warner Music releases: , and it appears she's been in movies too?  .  WP:MUSIC notes that a musician is considered notable if he or she "(h)as released two or more albums on a major label."  Warner Music Hong Kong certainly applies on the merits of her music alone. --badlydrawnjeff 15:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have expanded and sourced the information somewhat to reflect her notability. It still needs work, but I can't read Chinese/Cantonese. --badlydrawnjeff 15:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - featured on TV, movies . Awarded multiple prizes in Hong Kong's music awards  --Hurricane111 18:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- JJay 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please "always explain your reasoning." See Guide_to_deletion. -  brenneman (t) (c)  22:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good. -- JJay 22:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about this: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we don't determine things by voting. We attempt, though discussion, to reach a meaningful and rational consensus.  By fully explaining your reasons for supporting a particular course of action, you not only demonstrate your respect for the other parties invovled in the discussion but may sway those whose opinions do not match your own.  Terse or sarcasticly curt recomendations may be discounted by the closing admin. -  brenneman (t) (c)  23:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Aaron why are you nagging people when the reasoning and eventual outcome are clear enough? There is no chance of this being deleted now, so why should JJay care if the vote is discounted? Kappa 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd hardly call it "nagging", but I'll answer your question regardless. My comments have nothing to do with the eventual outcome of this discussion.  This has already had a positive outcome: The article is substantially improved, and now has references and links to her other works.  Bare votes (or worse, borderline uncivil expansions) defeat the purpose of these discussions.  I'd have made the same comment if it had been just the word "delete". -  brenneman (t) (c)  23:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As you point out, this discussion has already achieved the purpose of establishing the notability of the topic and had the side effect of improving the article. All that's left is to make the consensus nice and clear for anyone else skimming AFD and for the closing admin. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Kappa 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be blazingly obvious why I made no comment with my vote. Why waste bandwidth giving reasons for an article that should be a speedy keep and that should not have been speedied? Fiona Sit's achievements boggle the mind. She is a supremely talented international recording star. We should all send a letter of thanks to the editor who brought Fiona to our attention. I am also tired of the consistent bias demonstrated against Asian pop stars. The abuse of CSD is a further cause for concern. These are issues to talk about, along with why you have not yet withdrawn this nom -- JJay 23:27, 30 December 2005 (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.