Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crissi Cochrane

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 keep. Note that the number of views or the number of google hits are not considered valid arguments for keeping. henrik•talk 10:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crissi Cochrane[edit]

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

Fails wp:NMUSIC. I can't find any mentions on a Google search, or a Google news search. Looking at the article's references:

source 1 is self-published
source 2 is from the record label she published from
source 3 is a tabloid
~~source 4 is dead~~
source 5 only mentions her in passing
source 6 is a student magazine
source 10 is from YouTube

Now let's look at the Earshot chart references (8 and 9)...

I see that she's four on that chart (ref 8). However, when I search for the second song on the chart ("All Kinds of Mean"), it's red, and so is the band that released it. Number one also only has a short article, and the number one song doesn't have an article either ("Tuco"). The same happened for the ninth reference, as I couldn't find articles on bands higher on the chart than Ms. Cochrane, which makes me doubt the notability of the chart itself. Non-notable indie artist. Albacore (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to WP:NRVE we need to confirm the notability based on the data we have in the article, it means that absolutely we should not cross check whether or not other people have article or not, or whether the other people have a long or short article. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. This means that if the band that released All Kinds of Mean is not on Wikipedia it does not mean it is not notable. This applies also to the short article you have mentioned. The fact that there is an article, whether it is short or long cannot be used as a feedback or reference point to take decision on this AfD.

I have corrected the source 4. It's now working and it's a reliable source according to WP:V. Source 1 even if it is self-published can be considered as reliable and used as a reference in similar cases because it cites raw-data such as place of stay and job type. Source 2 you are right is a primary source. Alone it cannot stay. In this case it is supported by reliable 3rd party references. In my opinion it can stay. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is clear from searching Google and other music resources (including Pitchfork and NME) that this artist is not known outside a very tight circle of his own community/circles, and as such will need to have a lot of justification of notability. This article has none. Google searches find none. If I can use such evidence, article page hits don't suggest there's a significant number of people looking for him. In short - fails our policies on Musicians, notability and promotion and as such the article should be deleted doktorb _words^deeds 04:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This seems to be a borderline case, perhaps because she began with folk music, which is not as popular in Canada (or the U.S.) as during the 1950s/1960s. The March-2012 pageviews ([email protected]), in the first full month after the article was created, show some interest in the topic, averaging 15 pageviews per day. Compare that to 1 pageview per day for little-known footballers who have articles. Perhaps the reason this article was re-listed is because there is just barely enough notability, for a singer with an "indie" background. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did a search and there is plenty of hits on her. Mr little irish 17:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that "lots of google hits" do not equal actual "significant coverage in reliable sources"? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do realise, I seen some of the sites that came up on the search, and I would say they verify her according to policies. Mr little irish 15:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to WP:GOOGLEHITS please refrain to check the number of hits from google. Of course you can use google to add other relevant sources to the article, but not as a tool to see whether an article can be kept or not because of its number of hits. In the current state in my opinion the article should be kept according to WP:MUSICBIO as it satisfies the point 1,2, 4, 7, and from what I see in the refs also 11.--★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 18:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, passes multiple points of our Guideline for music.Cavarrone (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2012 (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.