Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Pan

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 Notability discussions aside, the promised sources were not forthcoming. If the various claims to notability in the original version are sourceable, get in touch with me for a reevaluation. ~ trialsanderrors 03:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alicia Pan

Alicia Pan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Questionable notability, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 12:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Should be a bot that looks for "One of . . . 's rising stars" and "fastest growing companies". Tractorkingsfan 13:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, never heard of her in the local media in my country. Advertising feature. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable musician in Taiwan. Recoreded with Universal Music and a signifficant smaller label that has a distribution arrangement with EMI. --Oakshade 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep re Oakshade, provided references are forthcoming. There's plenty of notable musical acts in my country that I've never heard of, too. But let's get some references. Drjon 22:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the ChynaHouse/EMI partnership, I'm trying to remember where I read that. So far I can only find an Ad Age article preview [1][2]. Working on other subject specific refs. --Oakshade 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I still stand by my "delete" vote. Take a look at the author of this article. His only other entry is a clearly autobiographical article about himself as a rising star of the producing world. And guess who one of his clients is: Alicia Pan. He's trying to advertise, and the claims of notability are unsupported. Tractorkingsfan 02:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This article should have been reduced to stublength to get rid of the sourceless and copyvio material and then speedy deleted for failing to assert notability. If this AFD nom fails, I'll verify whether it is proper to speedy an article after a AFD and, if so, nominate it. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom and Tractorkingsfan. To those advocating keep, please note that an EP is not an album, and she only has a single EP to her name. Fails to meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria, (additional reason added Nov 19:) fails to assert notability.Simões (^talk/_contribs) 09:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be now noted that this user's "Speedy" change due the article failing to assert notability came after they deleted the version that asserted notability [3]. --Oakshade 22:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a basis for deletion. Someone could have released only EP's, or even just a single, and be notable. --Oakshade 18:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's true. I was simply stating that the criteria she was asserted to have met was not, in fact, met. In order for her to properly be found notable, she needs to meet at least one of the criteria found in WP:MUSIC. The article itself does not assert notability in this way, and neither has anyone here. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC also states "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country." Breaking Free was a charted hit in several countries, even making the top-10 in a couple, but I don't have the info if the specific Asian version performed by Alicia Pan charted in conjunction with those. --Oakshade 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's the clincher, isn't it? I or Alicia Pan don't get a Wikipedia article for merely doing a cover of a charted hit. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 21:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If she is credited for the charted hit, whether it was covered or otherwise (WP:MUSIC doesn't excluded covers), that would be a direct qualification. --Oakshade 23:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if the cover itself charts, then this qualifies her. Is there any evidence for this? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the Breaking Free article, it made #4 in Singapore and we can assume that is the Asian version. I would like to find verification of that but so far I can't find a directory of historical Singapore music charts, even from the last few months. As for the honesty of the editors of that article, I will assume good faith. --Oakshade 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can assume that. It says #4 for "U.S., Singapore." The Asian version obviously didn't hit #4 in the United States. So it is either saying that the original version achieved this position on both charts, or that the original and the Asian cover both happened to peak at #4 on their respective charts. It is not a bad faith assumption to think that may not be true (we needn't doubt the editors' honesty, only their accuracy). This is really reaching for elusive smoke signals of notability. If this article is going to stay, we're going to need something to cite. Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles may not be cited as sources. And as a final side note, the Breaking Free article no longer gives any chart positions.Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's because you just deleted it [4]. Here's pre-Simões-slashed version for anyone interested [5]. --Oakshade 04:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be my point. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 04:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you truely question the accuracy of chart positions cited in song articles and not trying to single this article out for deletion since this artist was listed as the singer of a hit song, better get to work because most song articles don't cite references for chart positions. --Oakshade 04:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE TO CLOSING ADMINISTATOR Four days into this AfD, a user has deleted almost the entire article [6]. All verifiable material. This is highly inappropriate during an AfD as it could unduley affect editors opinions. Here is the pre-slashed version -> [7]. Please take this into consideration. --Oakshade 04:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate? The entire article was free of sources. Four out of five of the external links were probable copyright violations. There is no policy or even guideline that states an article should not be edited while undergoing an AFD discussion. Your claims an inappropriateness completely baseless, and your restoration of the deleted content is in violation of policy. Be more careful in the future when flinging around accusations like this. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 09:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

All information that was deleted is varifiable. I leave it to the administrators to decide what actions during this AfD were inappropiate. --Oakshade 16:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion In response to the request at WP:3O, WP:RS says it all:

"The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge and/or remove it."

Links to YouTube are generally being removed as so many YouTube videos are a copyright violation. If it could be legitimately shown that the copyright holder placed or authorized the placement of those particular videos, that's fine, but even then 4 or 5 links would be quite excessive. Finally, there is no prohibition against anyone editing during an AfD-in fact, if you examine the AfD template, it encourages editors to carry on editing. This edit does not appear to be any form of bad faith-anyone may remove unsourced claims, anytime. Seraphimblade 21:10, 19 November 2006 (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.