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. RL0919 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2022 (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)).

Chosen Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article was deleted via PROD, then contested at WP:RFUD. It was soft deleted at AfD due to a lack of quorum and has been reinstated at RFUD again. This article is promotional enough that one could have made a WP:CSD#G11 nomination (the article's creator likely has a WP:COI). The sourcing is not compliant, and this is after I have done WP:BEFORE and another user tried to improve the article prior to the soft deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Dance, Radio, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly been a colourful time, but the article is indeed promotional and its subject doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:SINGER, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alexandermcnabb no more promotional than any other artist on Wikipedia. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The musician has been around for a long time and seems to have made a living as a jack-of-all-media-trades under many different names. But the reliable media seems not to have noticed, as I can only find passing mentions of this person in the background of articles about other people, and their own press releases and streaming service entries. The article serves as an advertisement and personal biography, neither of which is appropriate for Wikipedia. No matter how much someone argues about the musician's lengthy career and self-promotional endeavors, the necessary sources just aren't out there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Doomsdayer520 Every living singer with a Wikipedia article could be classified as an advertisement or personal biography then if thats the case. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, but you must realize that people here are familiar with this site's policies and have been for a long time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and people/things must qualify for inclusion. Many of us voting to delete Chosen Effect's article have cited longstanding policies on who qualifies for a Wikipedia article and why. Please consider the opportunity for a learning experience, and read those policies carefully. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520 Interesting that you mention this sites policies because one of the biggest is to make every effort to improve an article rather than deleting it. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have made those efforts. They have not led the article to a place where it should be saved. Deletion is an important part of the encyclopedia as well. I recommend that you put your efforts to use on other pages and not continue to sink it in here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The changes made to the article since I originally PRODded it do not satisfy my concerns. Chosen Effect seems like an interesting person, and perhaps someday some reliable sources will take note of her story and write about it, but until then, we should not have an article on her. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin artist discography is full of published works with verifiable barcodes and other record label associated codes. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have been doing much research on this artist and they had huge success in Japan in the 1990's in particular. I have been able to find multiple verifiable music releases which citations have been created for. This artist has multiple music releases that were released under major record labels in Japan which are all verifiable as barcodes and other record Label associated codes exist and are part of the publishing process of musical works. If this is article is considered promotional and or an advertisement then the same could be said just about every other article on Wikipedia depending on how one chooses to perceive such things. The moment any persons name is mentioned, their accomplishments and or occupations past or present can all be seen as a form of promotion or advertising which is particularly true when it comes to entertainers. If you feel this article sounds promotional then why not help to improve it so that it does not. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Muboshgu You have stated that the articles creator likely has a conflict of interest which is your opinion not based on any actual facts which in all due respect only serves to facilitate negative bias towards this articles existence. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This article was created by a single-purpose account called Icecoldrecords. A potential COI of the article creator wanting to promote one of their artists is obvious and not at all biased. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Muboshgu that is your assumption. There is proof that this artist has released music with Sony Music, Pony Canyon, Vircenia Records, Trycle Records & Avex Trax but no where do I see any proof of this artist ever releasing or being an artist under the name icecoldrecords. So again your claim is mere speculation. All of the above are verifiable yours is not. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @LiterateFactChecker: You're conflating verifiability with notability. When I first found the Chosen Effect article, I had trouble verifying her existence at first, but did eventually find sources I found satisfactory to that limited end. But that isn't enough. In 2022, most people's existence is verifiable just by finding their social media. In many cases, people's existence is even verifiable through independent reliable sources. Mine is: I've been mentioned briefly in a few news articles over the years—but I'm no one notable. Notability is a harder bar to pass than verifiability, or even verifiability through independent reliable sources. The important distinction is that the coverage has to be significant. That's something of a term of art here, because yeah, showing up in a lot of track listings or press releases—if Chosen Effect has—is significant in the sense of "voluminous". But what we mean is things like profiles of the artist, or at least reviews by reputable sources—generally, a sense that independent reliable sources think that this is someone worth knowing about, rather than coming up in passing in routine coverage. The reason we set the car isn't just to gatekeep: It's not really possible to write a quality article when you don't have that kind of coverage to work with.

  As someone who cares a lot about improving our coverage of nonbinary people, and showing the diversity of that community, like I said, I think she's an interesting person and it's a shame that no one's picked up this interesting story. But until someone does, we can't write an article on her that says anything meaningful. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if that SPA doesn't have a COI with the subject of the article, the article still fails our notability requirements. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin@Muboshgu I personally feel our duty is to also be willing to take the time to actually dig deep and improve articles of all sorts especially ones of this nature of an accomplished artist. I too care which is why I have been passionately putting the time into doing the research and working to improve this article. I have already managed to discover many things and even now just updated another piece of information with supporting citation. I am confident in time that this article will continue to be improved on. We all are here wanting to do our part on Wikipedia and I feel exactly the same. Of the 6,506,930 articles on Wikipedia i feel that since this one is actively being improved upon that there does not need to be a sense of urgency to delete this one particularly. The burning desire that you seem to have to delete an article of an 90's artist that has literally been on Wikipedia for almost a decade baffles me. I could understand if there was not a single Wiki editor wanting to put in the work to continue improving the article but clearly that is not the case as besides myself I have seen there has been others that have also contributed. Improving articles should be our first line of action deletion should only reluctantly be a last resort. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu I noticed you have now decided to also go after this artists groups Wikipedia page now. It really does seem that you have some sort of issue with this person. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make this personal. It's a reasonable debate about content, not ad hominem abuse. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with Wikipedia articles about non-notable subjects, yes. This will be my last reply to you here, as your WP:BLUDGEONING of this discussion is not productive in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu not Bludgeoning whatsoever merely sharing my point of view in discussion. That is the point of a discussion page. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging - Could this article potentially be Merged with the artists groups Wikipedia could that be a possible solution? LiterateFactChecker (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb@Doomsdayer520@Muboshgu@Spiderone@Tamzin I have a fair comments/questions I would like you all to consider. Wikipedia policies says to consider alternatives to deletion like improving the page, merging or redirecting. I am personally doing so as you all know and over the many years this article has existed the history shows that other editors have contributed as well. If an article is constantly being improved upon why the sudden rush to delete it especially after existing for 15 years?

Merging - I've asked the question if perhaps doing so with the artists groups Wikipedia article could be a solution?

@Alexandermcnabb says don't make it personal which I agree with which is why has @Muboshgu now decided to also go after the artists groups 10 year old Wikipedia article for deletion after I improved upon the article which the act of doing so according to Wikipedia policy meant the article proposed deletion was null in void after removing the tag within the 7 day time period. The very moment I did the mentioned immediately nominated the article for deletion?

A 15 and 10 year old article that has multiple admins and editors looking over the articles for all these years is suddenly being pushed to be deleted seems odd in my opinion and again unnecessary in accordance of Wikipedias policy of improving upon an article as opposed to deleting it. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wondering how I found the article, it's because I monitor nonbinary people's articles for potential misgendering. When you corrected Chosen Effect's pronouns, that tripped the filter (which has no way to distinguish between misgendering and a valid correction). When I went to see if your edit had been correct or incorrect, I found it exceptionally hard to even find out what her pronouns are; to me, difficulty in verifying basic facts is often a good proxy for whether someone is notable, and my subsequent research bore that out. So, that's how this landed on my radar. To be clear, there's lots of old articles that get deleted. Age doesn't count for that much. I've found articles as old as 2007 that failed even our most basic "credible claim of significance" test (a test that this article passes). Heck, I found an article a while ago that was 90% unsourced statements added in 2004, which I had to cut down to "stub" size. Furthermore, notability standards change in time. I found another article from the early '00s on an obscure Indian businessman, which was unanimously deleted at AfD... But which had been kept in a previous AfD some 15 years ago because "he passes the Google test" (meaning he gets a nonzero number of Google hits); needless to say, that's no longer seen as a reason to keep an article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TamzinThanks for clarifying and the additional insight. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Citation added LiterateFactChecker (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Citation Added LiterateFactChecker (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Love Of words everyday: KEEP... I am not an academic, I am a person who has followed Faith for many years... I personally do not understand why anyone would even think of wanting to delete Faith's Wikipedia Article. This is a record of her life's achievements, her legacy, one that will be continued for many years to come. I do not see this Article as promotional at all, but rather full of interesting information and Facts about this artists life, isn't that what Wikipedia is all about, keeping the people informed about people's achievements!

When I 1st discovered "Chosen Effect/Faith Chase" I found alot of information on her and in time I came to Wikipedia and found out so much more information, I didn't realize that people could edit these pages until now... Never thought that people could request for Wikipedia Articles to be deleted, I find this to be extremely unsettling, to think that someone might have a grudge against someone and they feel that it is their right to have the Wikipedia Articles deleted, you can come up with any reason that you like, but in the end I feel that this is nothing more than someone being Nasty for whatever reason! I personally have just purchased some of Faith's earlier Albums.. "Subsonic Factor and Terry T" just last week, before I read this deletion request. I would like to thank all the people in the know, than understands how Wikipedia works, for taking the time to continue to update and improve on Faith's Article, I for one, Greatly Appreciated it! Please KEEP this Beautiful Artists Information available for all to see and learn about... It would be a shame and a great loss to lose Chosen Effect's Wikipedia Page defining her Achievements/her legacy. Kind Regards, "Love of words everyday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love of words everyday (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

note to reviewer the account posting the above screed was created today (June 6). Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPI was closed as likely canvassed/fans. So going to be whack a mole. Star Mississippi 22:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I admire the effort, but this is a purely promotional vanity page, and the weak sourcing reflects that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I appreciate efforts to improve articles, but the additions are just more content drawn from YouTube, Discogs, blogs and the like. Bottom line: no evidence has yet been presented that this subject has ever received independent reliable source coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, fails WP:NBASIC Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 7 June 2022 (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.