Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chel Hill

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. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chel Hill[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. No signs of any significant coverage for this person. Hill has been a background vocalist on charting songs, and is credited as one of several writers of one track of a charting album, but has not been the focus of any significant coverage herself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I question this person's interest in deleting my article entry. The section regarding Hill's credits on Issues album 'Headspace' has been removed, however, her credits appear on the physical copy of the album when purchased in store. Also, they have completely ignored Hill's voice talent section (which can be verified) in the request to delete profile. As a writer and singer, Hill has accomplished more than most writers will in a career by having credits of any type on more than 1 Billboard #1 charting album. And her contributions have been enough for people to mention and for her to receive the credit in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProEmcee (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ProEmcee: As the nominator of this article, my interest in seeing it deleted is that I don't believe Ms Hill meets the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. I have no ulterior motive. I don't have any personal grudge against Ms Hill (nor had I ever even heard of her before encountering this article). I have not removed any information from the article. Other editors have, based on Wikipedia's verifiability policy that requires reliable sources. As for Hill's voice-over career, this does not appear to be a source of notability as there does not appear to be significant independent sourcing for this information. Lots of people do voice-over work; very few ever become notable for it. It tends to be one of those thankless jobs that go largely unnoticed. Notable people have performed voice acting work, but they were notable for other things. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of your nominations and edits here in Wiki have made you a "notable" enough member of the Wiki community to have an editor badge, but that could be argued as well. However, I do believe people should be recognized for their efforts and am happy for you. You mentioned she is "credited as one of several writers" but do you even know what percentage she contributed?? The other writers could have 1% for all you know, correct? It just seems wrong to argue that it's not "enough" to have credit on 2 #1 albums. I'd imagine then, you've had at least 2 credits on Billboard topping projects and consider this to be an easy task? I am being fair in considering your position, but it does not seem valid when there's proof she contributed to these projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProEmcee (talk • contribs) 16:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ProEmcee: No, I don't know what percent she contributed, because no reliable sources exist to indicate this information. Without reliable sources, we can't have verifiable articles. Find the sources, and then make your argument. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Song splits on a song are rarely disclosed publicly as that is a legal matter. Splits are discussed and signed off on legally. You should also know what you are commenting on for future reference. Perhaps this is a larger issue that should be brought up to the community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProEmcee (talk • contribs) 16:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ProEmcee: If the song splits are not disclosed publicly, that's a shame. But we still need publicly available reliable sources on which to base this article. If no such sources are available, that's a shame, but we can't have the article without the sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@wikidan61 I don't see where there are non-credible or "not reliable" links for sources. Last time I checked, sources such as Billboard, Discogs, etc are pretty reliable. I will also be citing the actual song registration.

Comment @ProEmcee: Please read and understand WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The bottom line is that we need evidence that some third party, independent of Ms Hill, has taken the time to write an in-depth article about her. Listings at Discogs and even at Billboard are not sufficient. Those sources are sufficient to verify bits and pieces of the article, but they do not amount to enough significant coverage to indicate that Ms Hill merits inclusion at Wikipedia. Wikipedia has guidelines as to what should be included and what should not, and those guidelines are clearly spelled out at the pages to which I have pointed you. If you can demonstrate that Ms Hill merits inclusion based on the listed criteria, than please do so. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to bring up to the community the issue of how an interview by an opinionated media outlet trumps actual/factual album credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProEmcee (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)(ProEmcee (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete At this moment, I was not able to find any reliable independent source covering her. The reliable references in the article like [1],[2] do not even mention her name. The rest of the sources I found are user generated/self published sources which cannot be used for notability. If the subject is notable, there should be at least some coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added newly published references to the entry. (ProEmcee (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@ProEmcee: And yet still none of the references constitutes significant coverage of this artist. All of the references are either about songs on which Hill has had a partial writing credit, or are videos of commercials on which she has done uncredited voiceover work, or similar sketchy references. Bring us any instances where some third party, writing independently, has produced a significant article about Ms Hill, and we might have something. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61:Sources such as All Music & Discogs do not post "sketchy" credits as there is a verification process. Your choice of wording makes it seem as though you have a personal interest in deleting this page. Per the AllMusic Wiki Page: "AllMusic is also used to provide catalog data, artist biographies, album reviews, related artist information, playlists and other information in the iTunes Music Store, Zune Marketplace, Zune player, eMusic, AOL, Yahoo!, Amazon.com and other music stores. AllMusic is also at the heart of the Naim Extended Music database used by the Naim HDX hard disk player.[4]"(ProEmcee (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- Note that as per the Reliable Source Notice board, Discogs is not a reliable source[3]. Anyone can made edits, much like IMDB or Wikipedia. The Discogs site says "Discogs is a user-built discography site." [4] Even Wikipedia has checks and balances, but we do not allow it to be used as a source. LaMona (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LaMona: Thank you Lamona, and AllMusic? (I'd assume that counts as a reliable source as it does in the world outside of Wikipedia including the actual music industry.) New to the community and learning. I find it interesting that I'm going through so much to have my entry approved, and yet, according to the information you've just provided above--none of my approved entries will be counted as reliable sources anyways. It's all a bit confusing, but as mentioned, I'm still learning my way around here in Wikipedia and appreciate the information. (ProEmcee (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- As I understand it, AllMusic is accepted for basic facts like track lists. (There does appear to be some fact-checking) It doesn't, however, support notability because it indeed lists ALL MUSIC, not some selection. LaMona (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Following up, there is some ambiguity in the article about what Hill has done, and there is promotional language. For ambiguity, it isn't clear what kind of "working" was done with "She eventually worked on major record label projects for artists ". That just doesn't say much so it is hard to assess notability. You need to stick to facts that can be verified. Since this appears to be your first article, my !vote is to Userfy and take this through Articles for Creation where you have a chance to make the needed edits without facing deletion. LaMona (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ProEmcee: Rather than searching for which music database might be considered a reliable source, you should be looking for instances of significant coverage for this subject. Significant coverage includes an entire article written by a source independent of the subject and not as part of a PR campaign, published in a widely read and professionally edited source such as a national magazine or a national, edited and curated music blog. When such sources exist, we can then rely on the fact-checking mechanisms of those national publications to assure that the facts in the Wikipedia article can be verified. Until such sources exist, we generally deem that the person is not yet ready for a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LaMona: Thank you for your vote LaMona. It is most definitely my first article and I appreciate your guidance. I will gather the needed information. (ProEmcee (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet notability requirement. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are some charts but there's still nothing else otherwise convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 25 June 2016 (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.