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 no consensus, having assigned appropriate weighting to new and unregistered users' comments. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greyson Michael Chance

[edit]

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

Nomination on behalf of anonymous user 24.189.90.68; subject of the article fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). The original nomination follows:

"Yeah, ok, he just got signed. But beyond being a YouTube sensation, is there any reason for him to have his own article already? He hasn't released an album or even a single yet. I think it would be best to wait until an actual career of some sorts flourishes so that there can be a REASON for this article to exist. The hype from his YouTube video will die down very quickly, and this article will look pointless as a result." — Preceding text originally posted on Talk:Greyson Michael Chance (diff) by 24.189.90.68 (talk⋅contribs) 00:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My submission of this nomination is purely procedural as a result of the inability of anonymous users to create pages and does not imply that I support 24.189.90.68's views. Xenon54 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Redirect to Interscope Records for now. He has gained a lot of media coverage, but it's only been a week. Only time will tell if he's just a fad or will turn out to actually be notable. –Chase (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Greyson Michael Chance has gained a great deal of publicity very quickly, mostly due to the quality of his performance both on youtube and on the Ellen show. One of the amazing things about Wikipedia is that it is capable of responding just as quickly. The general public is interested in knowing the kind of information that is found in this article and on that basis alone, this article should stay. It will be interesting to see how this article changes over time, but for now, it serves as a record of how Chance gained immense popularity in an extremely short period of time. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Oh please ... get over it there's a wiki page for everything useless and useful ... why is anyone wasting their time caring??? I mean why are you so obsessed with hating on a 12 year old. Grow up and get a pair! The idea that the page would be taken down DISGUSTS me. There are FAR more offensive articles here on wikiddywack so read what ytou want and DON'T read what you disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.15.34 (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And note that well-reasoned, carefully thought out !votes are much more persuasive than "grow up and get a pair" ~~- not least because because editors who came here to offer weak support might very well end up replying to anonymous IPs instead... TFOWR^propaganda 10:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)~~ TFOWR^propaganda 11:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Internet phenomenons are notable by itself. And being featured on internationally broadcasted show like Ellen DeGeneres Show counts as media coverage for sure. Monni (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ~~(from a non-!voter who's leaning towards agreeing with Monni1995):~~ The subject's appearance on the Ellen DeGeneres show was covered by, for example, the BBC: "Lady Gaga phones 12-year-old YouTube star". TFOWR^propaganda 11:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC) TFOWR^propaganda 11:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has actually already made it to the swedish newspapers, so he is not just a Youtube sensation any more. Dagens Nyheter is the largest swedish morning newspaper and here is the article - just as an example of the worldwide coverage he has got. So he is quite notable. Lova Falk talk 11:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above, but needs more sourcing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep strong Hi, I am probably writing this in the wrong place and I am not sure how to add a signature so I am very sorry. Just to let you know my thoughts. I think this article should definitely exist. It is true that at the moment he is only a YouTube sensation and it is true that soon the hype may die down but this is history in the making. Yes, in honesty it may be a speck in History but it is still History. What if someone thought the Doomsday Book was worthless and should be deleted? (well, binned). In 100 years time, if someone is looking back into history on the the effect of YouTube and creating overnight sensations (that perhaps only last overnight or continue to become stars), they can easily do this by looking at articles such as this one! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.174.248 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment: (I signed for you: you can sign by typing four "tildes" after your post, like this: "~~~~") Even if the hype over the article's subject does die down, that wouldn't necessarily be a valid reason for the article to be deleted. If the editors here, yourself included, can demonstrate that Greyson is notable then it's quite likely the article will be kept. TFOWR^propaganda 11:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this being considered to be deleted? He has OVER 15 Million views! He is the biggest thing in the media right now and has been signed by the biggest record label out there! He has appeared on world-wide television already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.249.9 (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per the news articles indicating notability. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I don't think he passes WP:GNG, as the coverage seems to be all about one event at this point. However, I'd bet that very soon he will be notable and receive press coverage for something other than his Youtube video. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete In general, when it comes to people notable only for one event, as appears to be the case, the important policy here is WP:BLP1E and the guideline WP:SINGLEEVENT. WP:BLP1E states: "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I'm glad the kid got his 15 minutes of fame, but it does seem like a Media circus, and I think it'll fade into background noise in a short time. :) Just my thoughts. ^Avicenna_sis @ 02:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E states very clearly it is for "a low-profile individual." A person who appears on national television shows and signs with a major record label is in no manner "low profile."--Oakshade (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep strong - I got a random youtube link from a friend, and I came here seeking more information. Maybe the kid will fade from history tomorrow, maybe not, but you cannot argue that the kid isn't a notable phenomenon right now. The article should exist right now. "Deletionists: Lobotomizing Wikipedia one article at a time" Lhoriman (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want "right now", head on over to Wikinews. That's where "right now" news is better suited for. Also see WP:DEADLINE. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, WP:DEADLINE is irrelevant here, this is not a news story. This is something sufficiently notable that people are virally emailing links all over the internet. It fits the very definition of "worthy of notice" - many millions of people are people are noticing it. It might not be notable sometime in the future, but that is pure speculation and prediction. If you want to delete the article as irrelevant next year, make that fight then. This kid is notable right now, and when people come to Wikipedia looking for encyclopedic information about this email they keep getting, they should find an article. Lhoriman (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having over 15 17 million views in itself demonstrates notability. And since this AfD started, he signed with Interscope Records (same label as Lady Gaga). Oh yeah, and he's had very in-depth coverage from reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. At this point, editors crystal ball speculation of the future non-notability of this person is willful ignorance. --Oakshade (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, having 15 million views on YouTube in of itself does not demonstrate notability, unless said video is covered extensively by the media. And even then, there's WP:RECENTISM, so it's not always a good idea to create an article for everything that gets mentioned on TV or on the web. No one is saying for sure that Greyson will go back to being a nobody six months to a year from now, it could easily go either way. But more often than not, people that become famous due to internet hype tend to fade into obscurity just as quickly as they became huge, so waiting to see if this kid will remain on the public's radar isn't exactly a crime. Also, signing with a major label doesn't count either, until that person releases a song or an album, because it is not uncommon at all for artists to get dropped by labels before any project of theirs gets a chance to be released or even recorded. Wasn't Gaga signed to Arista Records or something a few years ago, until L.A. Reid dropped her? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to help prevent our wilful ignorance, are you able to cite the future notability of the subject? ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this kid has shown up in a popular youtube video, mass media, and virally transmitted email links, your position seems to suggest that no subject can possibly be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article until a couple years after the fact. Since there is no deadline, why not propose AfD sometime in the future when/if the subject is no longer notable? Lhoriman (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, wikipedia would be much smaller than it is now as quite a few people (particularly actor's and singers) aren't notable after the spotlight goes away from them. The kid is 13, he MIGHT have a long career ahead of him but it is doubtful that he will do anything until after high school. In my case, I am for a Weak keep.--Hourick (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strong: My reason for deletion is simple, who is he? 15 million view on youtube means nothing. What constitutes how many views it takes? What about the kid with 14.9 million views who doesn't have his own page. He's released no albums, no singles, nothing. All he has is a home video of a recital on youtube. Being signed means nothing. Interscope probably signed 150 people this month. Doesn't mean they get their own page or even a cd will be released. The arguments saying we should keep because he's notable as of this moment aren't credible. What constitutes notoriety? A 5 minute segment on Ellen? Wikinews would be perfect for trending topics. I say delete for now till he does anything, and when he does, bring it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.204 (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC) — 206.53.157.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Whether it's enough is a matter of opinion, but our rule on "what constitutes notoriety" is coverage in reliable sources, as explained at WP:NOTE. Basically, it's whether newspapers, magazines, books, and certain websites write about a subject. Just so you know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's plenty of coverage, and he's been signed. Even if he doesn't do anything more, there will be coverage of that too. Plus there's interesting speculation of his rise[1], that means the info should be merged to whatever article talks about internet marketing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is appearing on television shows, and there are now articles about him on CNN, BBC, etc. --Flask (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appearance on a talk show plus tons of youtube hits. Not clear to me this is widespread enough to be notable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He has had considerable national and international news coverage, his case is much like susan boyle's, he is signed to one of the largest record companies in the world, it would be a waste to delete him on the grounds he hasnt released a record because he will be releasing records and then someone would be writing his article all over again.--Joebengo (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strong Even though he might only be on youtube now tommorrow hes going to be huge,he has talent and you shouldnt take this page away when he already has millions of fans from youtube which means when acctully gets famous he will have even more. Musicrockz (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC) (This was copied from the talk page by Lova Falk talk 14:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep- There isn't a real reason why this should be up for deletion. Seeing has been on many TV shows, people are going to be doing web searches on him. And the fact people can use this wikipedia article to find out more about him may contribute to his popularity or success in some way —Preceding unsigned comment added by S73W1E6R1FF1N (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- I first heard of him on an MSN Internet news feature, so he does meet the general notability criterion for Wikipedia. Plus he's already a household name. Wiwaxia (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/redirect/merge per WP:GNG, WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:BLP1E. The subject is currently notable solely for his performance on YouTube, a performance which has gained him some international coverage - but purely for that one event (YouTube performance). My preference would be for this article to be merged into List of YouTube personalities, and this article recreated if/when the subject releases something. Assuming that the subject will eventually meet our notability requirements is inconsistent with WP:CRYSTAL (and the onus is on those proposing future fame to provide verification...), and regrettably I can see plenty of policy reasons to delete/merge/redirect, and only enthusiasm as a reason to keep. TFOWR^propaganda 11:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:BLP1E is explicitly clear it is for "a low-profile individual." This is not in any manner a "low profile" person. As for WP:SINGLEEVENT, this is another example of a user throwing this guideline sub-clause up as if WP:NOTABILITY forbids articles of people who were known for single event. It doesn't. WP:SINGLEEVENT even states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This person's performance has garnered heavy worldwide attention and the person's role within the event was large. And besides, it's more than one event. Being in on national talk shows are other events. Just because the person became famous from one event, doesn't magically mean all subsequent events didn't happen. Your arguments are reminding me of the AFD for Levi Johnston when most of the delete arguments were to the effect of "notable because of one event, the act sex with Bristol Palin." Of course that was nonsensical as he was famous and a very public person. The outcome was a solid "KEEP." --Oakshade (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, if it was in anyway unclear why I feel that WP:BLP1E and WP:SINGLEEVENT apply here the best thing to do would have been to ask me to clarify, rather than second-guessing my reasons for citing these policies. I'm happy to discuss my !vote elsewhere; if I feel that my arguments above are not clear I will clarify my !vote above - so discussion in that respect would be very helpful. Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 12:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unfortunately. Technically he is verifiable and notable according to our guidelines. Hammering a keyboard and yammering out a song on Youtube was not notable. Doing it on a major TV show and getting signed to a record label for it has turned this low talent child into a notable property. Pity. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is no longer for "a single event", simply because he has also appeared on the Ellen show (which is a second event). It has already been announced that he will appear on the Ellen show a second time, the 26th of May, 2010; furthermore, the Ellen show has already filmed him in his last day of school, as announced at his Twitter account. Besides which, as others have stated, not only his one YouTube performance, but also the Ellen appearance, have been noted by major news outlets around the world. Justin Bieber was recently asked in a radio interview about Greyson Michael Chance; so, that's another reference, and not just to the single event but to the general phenomenon of Chance's rise. (Bieber thought it was good for Chance to get the attention.) It might be important here to separate the consideration of Greyson Michael Chance, the person, from Greyson Michael Chance the phenomenon; but the phenomenon has gained widespread coverage, and with it the person. Cgweeks (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)— Cgweeks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep- worldwide sensation, Swiss TV too crazy --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2010 (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.