Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Robinson

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. Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Self?) promotional article with weak sources fails WP:ENT Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable sources previously removed by earlier edits. Picture of artist removed, even with proper copyright clearance. 10 December 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.27.249.227 (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page, now, properly cleaned and all existing pages linked -- comment added by 122.27.249.227 (talk) 2:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Even if the group itself were notable, this one member of the group is not (yet). There is one source about him, from his school, but that is not enough to establish notability. This looks like a first article by a new editor, so I want to say that the article formatting and content seems to meet WP standards, which is good. It's just that the person in question isn't "encyclopedic". LaMona (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The coverage isn't significant. Vrac (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many notability instances removed in previous edits. Artist has appeared on several notable, nationally televised TV programs, has over 150,000 downloads of his music internationally (https://www.jamendo.com/en/artist/451022/chaz-robinson), and received two nods on the 2015 official grammy ballot for Best Pop Solo Performance -- which alone would be more than substantial regarding notability. (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Based on the pattern of edits, I have reason to think that the IP editor may have a COI on this topic. That's all I'm saying. IP editor, please read WP:PSCOI. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not affiliated with the subject of this article. Logical Cowboy, please review the feedback on your page regarding the frequency of comments in relation to incorrect allegations of COI. (talk) 1:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, I can't see any evidence of notability online and the claims in the article don't amount to much (Indianapolis is a very large city, but we have no proof of the details or scale of the Christmas-lights-switching-on event). Overall, suggests this is a promotion by someone closely associated with him and Chaz hasn't yet broken into the big time without Wikipedia's help. Sionk (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note citation in article. The event was televised and had over 100,000 attendees. National Television appearances are notable. Wikipedia is not a logical, probable, or effective means to obtain fame. Statement irrelevant. (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation is broken and I can't see an alternative. Even if he was *a* singer at the event, I doubt 100,000 people were there to see *him*. It suggests there were several other events and attractions at this Christmas tree lighting ceremony. As for Wikipedia not being an effective vehicle for publicity, I beg to differ. It's the 6th most popular website. I've worked extensively at Articles for Creation and know there is a queue of recording companies and agents trying to publish articles about their products. Sionk (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not meant to promotional and contains no advertisement-like content. All information is cited, accurate, and non-sensationalized. (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True on all accounts, and the reason I removed some of the excessive clean-up templates from the article. Well done for that! But these aren't the reason it's been nominated for deletion discussion. We're looking for evidence Chaz is 'notable' i.e. been widely written about in credible, journalistic sources. Websites like SnapCracklePop seem to have no editorial control, so personally I wouldn't consider them reliable or journalistic. Sionk (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability -- Chaz is not only a recording artist, as cited and sourced in the article. Therefore, he falls under the notability guidelines of entertainers. Having a large international following, multiple appearances on national TV shows, and roles in large stage productions. Regarding the tag for nomination of deletion, it states the article is written in a promotional fashion, which is not the case. (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article initially marked for deletion based on "promotional" or "self-promotional" issues as well as notability concerns. "Promotional" tag removed by Sionk and marked as "redundant" & "excessive." Subject falls under the notability guidelines of entertainers. Issue tag removed. This article does not contain any material confirming either of the initial claims for grounds as deletion. (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC) — 122.27.249.227 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment I'm surprised that this has lasted three weeks. It's not a vote, but four editors have argued for deletion. One chatty SPA IP has argued to keep, all the while removing maintenance tags and doing other mischief. The SPA IP has not explained how this satisfies WP:ENT. In other words, for all the SPA IP's chatty posting here, he has not addressed the policy basis of the original nom. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mischief is hardly appropriate or applicable terminology as I have continued increasing the value of the article. The first tag was removed by another editor and the second removed by myself, as the article DOES fall under the notability guidelines outlined in WP:ENT, as I have explained above, should you care to review them. If not, please allow me to reiterate: Being that Chaz has over 200,000 downloads of his music, nearly a quarter of a millions listeners (as cited above with Jamendo) and substantial following on all of his social networking would fulfill the large following point. Secondly, he has made numerous national television appearances included America's Best Dance Crew, The Ellen Degeneres Show (arguably the second most notable talk show to Oprah), Disney's Shake It Up, MTVs MADE, and so on. All sources cited within the article in question. The reason the article has not been deleted is due to the fact that I have posed logical and complete arguments as to why the accusations are incorrect. Directing arguments towards users and not towards the article is considered disruptive, according to this article. (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.