Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candice Jarrett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 wasDelete Spartaz Humbug! 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Candice Jarrett

Candice Jarrett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject is not notable, and article appears to be a marketing strategy Jonwatson69 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, some marginal claims to notability, but the sources (poorly formatted as they may be) just don't cut it -- most of them are trivial mentions, or just plain unreliable (or, in one case, actually another Wikipedia page). The awards she's won don't seem notable enough, nor is the fact that she's been an opening act. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do NOT Delete, Under The Deletion Policy for "Criteria for musicians and ensembles," this girl clearly fits reasons 1, 4, 5, 7, and 12. Only one of the above criteria is needed for this particular subject to remain in wiki, so this article appears to coincide with guidelines. Sources need to be cleaned up on this one, and I will try to help out fixing this article. Sk8trboyyy unsigned comment added by Sk8rboyyy (talk • contribs)

In response: Candice Jarrett does not fit criterion 1, which states that she must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." As TenPoundHammer correctly points out, all the sources that report on Candice Jarrett are unreliable and trivial. For example, source 3 claims that Ms. Jarrett had a radio interview with the BBC also has the blatant appearance of a marketing page. The "Power Performers" claim is also highly questionable, as a search of "Candice Jarrett" at Power Performers and College Power Performers yields nothing, despite the website of Candice Jarrett imploring us to "contact Candice's management, Power Performers, at www.collegepowerperformers.com."[1] Additionally, Power Performers claims that "unlike those bureaus who feature a select roster of presenters, we do not have to find bookings for a specific group. Instead, we are free to recommend any and all speakers and entertainers, including those that are listed exclusive with other bureaus and agencies."[2] Translation: "we don't actually have contracts with any celebrities, but we try our darndest to hire them for you."

No other source meets criterion 1's threshold. Sources 1, 2, 5, 11, and 20 come from her personal website. Information also comes from promotional and/or non-notable blogs, including sources 3, 6 (clearly promotional--see here), 7 and 10 (also constitute "Media reprints of press releases" and "Works comprising merely trivial coverage" as described in criterion 1), 14, and 19. Source 4 is another Wikipedia page. Sources 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, and 17 are online profiles or videos that anyone can create. That leaves source 15; however, merely appearing somewhere on the VH1 website and nowhere on the main alphabetical artist listing means nothing--this same site appears to host numerous other non-notable artists. On said album page, her album rating is "5.0 stars," suggesting that very few people visit. As for source 18, a political blog's single link to her YouTube video for the purpose of mocking her does not constitute "reliability" nor confer notability. In sum, there is not a single source that lends any significance or notability at all; this is far from the multiple independent sources that criterion 1 requires.

Now what about criterion 4, which states that an artist must have "gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources"? I have already addressed the lack of such sources. Anyone with a guitar can take it to France and sing some songs; the presence of reliable sources shows that said singing was actually important. Yet in this case, they are absent.

Criterion 5 states that the artist must have "released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Yet source 15 reveals that the label for Candice Jarrett's sole album is "Cann," which only lists Candice Jarrett and looks like some unremarkable shell company located in her own hometown.

Criterion 7 demands that an artist must have "become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" (emphasis mine). I find it highly doubtful that Candice Jarrett is the most important artist in her area, and even if she were, there are absolutely no sources to back up such a claim.

As for Criterion 12 (has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network), find a source besides that promotional blog and prove that her alleged interview lasted longer than a half hour. No other criterion appears to come close, and the aforementioned criteria are a major stretch. Therefore, while it is true that an artist need only to meet one criterion, Candice Jarrett has met none. Jonwatson69 (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • DO NOT DELETE - RESPONSE, while your opinion is noted, it appears that you inject a lot of speculation where the facts should be. A rating of 5.0 doesn't neccessarily indicate that few people visit her profile on VH1.com. Even if it did, there is no fact or evidence to back that up, and wikipedia is all about the facts. As I said before, the subject is clearly noteable - if proper sources can be cited. I've already started gathering them. Check my latest edit to this entry. Sk8trboyyy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk8rboyyy (talk • contribs) 19:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In response: 1. Please do not leave unsigned comments and then retype your recommendation in bold. It gives a skewed impression of the Wikipedia community's opinion. 2. On that particular album page, a 5.0 user rating is perfect. For a perfect rating, every single person who visited must have rated her a 5.0. If more than a handful of people other than her family or closest friends bother to rate her, what are the chances that no one will ruin her rating by selecting 4 stars? Pretty low. 3. If anything, I would think that broad declarations that she meets all those criteria would be lacking facts and evidence. For someone who is "clearly noteable" [sic], it sure isn't clear. 4. The latest source you included has numerous problems. First, most of the article is unavailable to those who haven't subscribed. Second, it looks like nothing more than trivial coverage by a Syracuse paper of a Syracuse-hosted state fair. If Wikipedia included articles on every state fair performer across the country, it would be overrun with irrelevance. Third, the article is dated September 1, 2005 and states "she'll play the state fair's Coliseum stage at 1 p.m. Friday and Saturday," yet Candice Jarrett states, "on 2 August 2005, Candice Jarrett performed at The Great New York State Fair." Which is it, and as a corollary, can any of these sources be trusted? 5. Thou dost protest way too much. On Candice Jarrett's history page, you responded to a ProD by removing it and remarking "subject appears to be a biography about a noteable individual" as if you were some disinterested observer stumbling upon the page and giving your unbiased opinion. Yet your passion for this topic, your ability and strong desire to "help out" in "fixing" this article, and the singular purpose of your user account suggest a conflict of interest on your part--see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Jonwatson69 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, doesn't seem to be notable. Nakon 03:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: All music guide has a listing for one, apparently self-released, record. No bio. I don't see much indication that she's gotten significant coverage. Friday (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • delete it... for now, i understand where sk8tr and watson are comin from. i think that as is, candice jarrett's profile should be deleted from wiki. jonwatson seems like a bully tho because he obviously has made this very personal.. dude it must have taken u like 10 hours to go through that suff... u were a little too thouro and prolly are an ex boyfriend ha ha and sk8tr is most likely a drooling stalker who has a crush on her. chill out dudes, its not that serious. in my opinion, having seen her site, jarrett has her act together and will probably end up in wiki sooner or later fully meeting the criteria. there are so many articles in wiki that should be bumped no contest but she must be a smart blonde cause she has dooped u all into a heated discussion about her. ha ha on u then because this really isnt noteable but u spent hours of ur life on it. my final word is to delete it and reinstate when the criteria are fully met which i believe will happen in the near future. BZAHRG!!! PandaWearsPants (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jonwatson's extensive research. In looking myself, sources are definately either trivial or self-published. Many blogs are also mentioned which are not reliable WP:RS. VH1 mention is totally insignificant. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2008 (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.