Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Suissa

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 (NAC). Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Suissa

[edit]
Justine Suissa (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)

I cannot find substantial coverage of this singer, only mentions (of which I've added three). The talk page contains an argument between two editors who both say they know her well, as to whether she's English or American. When I came upon the page, she was presented as English and a birth year category was included, but the only source—the only reference in the article—was a non-functioning search. Her Facebook page appears not to have been updated since 2011. It thus seems to be impossible either to write a useful article or to establish notability. The article was previously PRODded. So unless someone else can find adequate sources, I think it should be deleted. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Comment we shouldn't have NN BLPs with such sourcing issues. User:Garion96 why remove the PROD and COI? Luckily someone has brought this here to finally fix. Widefox; talk 00:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article did not have have "significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality" That there was maybe undisclosed editing does not warrant the COI tag. Garion96 (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, seems you did a good job keeping my rough work across several articles in check (see my comment below). These were all badly sourced but we may be close to verifying them now. (sorry to put you on the spot) Widefox; talk 10:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is one of several promo articles centered around Anjunabeats Above & Beyond (band) that I presume are COI, undisclosed editing (that was my PROD cleanup), worth checking WP:COIN etc to cleanup more NN articles / WP:SPA promo only. e.g. OceanLab may be borderline NMUSIC, AfD was no consensus, but leaning towards merge. Widefox; talk 00:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:MUSICBIO, Not only has Justine been at #6 on the Billboard Charts.[1][2], she also has featured in ensembles and with notable musicians like Chicane and Armin van Buuren,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] apart from being placed in rotation nationally by major radio stations and music channels like BBC[10][11], Radio RU,[12] and Billboard's Hot Dance Airplay multiple times.[13][14] In fact, as a featured artist, she has featured in BBC Radio 1's Essential Mix compilation,[15][16][17] and has been featured as a newsmaker in the Billboard Dance Music Summit.[18] All these points, as per WP:MUSICBIO, point to her notability. I've provided various references from BBC, Billboard, MTV, confirming her chart top 10 song, collaborations, and her being placed in rotation nationally in radio/music channels; for anyone who might wish to include the same in the article. Lourdes 03:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If #6 on the Billboard Charts is correct, then this would satisfy WP:MUSICBIO 2. The claim isn't in the article, and the single is listed as Armin van Buuren "featuring Justine Suissa", so wouldn't that refer to the notability of Armin van Buuren, or maybe better as the single itself? Isn't this a bit like Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases.. So if you're right then I may change my !vote but notability is not inherited from those notable artists per WP:INHERITED. On the other hand, being mentioned/featured with different artists would make a separate article logical. Widefox; talk 10:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Widefox, you have much more experience on this than I. I'll go by your discretion; whatever you think is appropriate. Lourdes 14:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my opinion below "too soon", but with the caveat I haven't checked your sources (good job by the way). Regards Widefox; talk 15:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Widefox. WP:MUSICBIO mentions, "Musicians or ensembles...may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Because of the usage of the term "ensembles", I believe the subject notability guideline includes cases where a performer is featured along with another main performer. In such a case, this performer would qualify on MUSICBIO 2 AND MUSICBIO 12 comfortably. Having said that, let me reiterate that I'll leave the judgement to you and change my !vote (or keep it the same) depending on what you think of the article after seeing the sources. Lourdes 15:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment {ping|Xender Lourdes}} Thank you for finding those sources. My hunt totally failed to find any of them. It's entirely possible that Google wouldn't show me any of them because I hadn't previously searched for info on trance music. Could you please add some to the article? All it has right now by way of references is the woeful scraps I was able to find. And can you possibly find sources on any aspect of her biography? This is a BLP, and I'm really concerned by that argument on the talk page and the possibility that is raised there that there may be two different people. Also, a point of clarification: there are many different charts—is cracking the top ten on any Billboard chart good enough for the music notability criterion, or are some of them a bit niche? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yngvadottir. In general, Billboard charts and sub-charts are national charts and are played quite often across radio channels. So I'll consider the niche charts as acceptable in the notability criterion. I will add the references to the article this coming week. I'll try to find out other sources too. Thanks for your effort too. Lourdes 10:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Justine has been featured in various songs by various artists. Van Buuren is not her only collab, not to mention she's been in the music business since the turn of the millennium. If one does a musical search for JUstine Suissa, they'll come accross her featured with artists like Robbie Rivera, Armin Van Buuren, Above and Beyond, Etc. Similar to how Kirsty Hawkshaw who has been singing since 1989-1990 has been featured with a plethora of artists. Regardless of whether our 40 year old friend is American or English, she has a plethora of chart topping hits in electronic dance music history with many artists, so therefore she should get her own article here. If not, then why not delete this one too? Eric Ramus 199.101.62.73 (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Namedropping is a sure sign the topic isn't notable per WP:INHERITED. It's an argument to avoid, as is delete another artist per WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's likely this topic is too soon but it's not my opinion that matters, but finding say reliable sources to demonstrate notability per these guidelines WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. NARTIST has many criteria, I encourage anyone here to find one it matches and prove it. Widefox; talk 15:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, multiple collaborations, and over 50 incoming links, (many from other articles) this looks like it needs to be more than a redlink. Montanabw(talk) 20:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree it's WP:USEFUL, My concern is a BLP RS are needed, so seems borderline or TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 12:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Ok, there's a lot to get through here. Firstly, @Widefox: A couple of things on your comments. OceanLab clearly meet WP:NMUSIC through their #38 UK hit actually #19 - see additional comment "Satellite" in 2014, I knew about that one off the top of my head and there's a reliable source here. Secondly, I noticed Justine's name in the index and I really do believe she meets our criteria. The evidence provided by Lourdes is a lot of this. In the UK, she doesn't quite qualify by way of singles hits, with a #48 in 2002 (here) and a #45 in 2004 here - both Wikia sources but the official site will verify it). (If you don't know, it's the Top 40 in the UK.) But they're both close enough, and most importantly, the latter track was a major dance hit. The airplay Lourdes mentions is relevant too because that's a criteria on WP:NMUSIC. Yes, she is the featured artist, but in dance music there's quite a lot of famous featured vocalists that work with lots of artists (I won't list names as I'll be accused of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), and crucially she's featured and credited. It's a collaboration, and whether it says "featured" or "and" (or "presenting" or "with") is not relevant. Finally, again for @Widefox: I am missing the rationale for WP:TOOSOON entirely. Justine's work goes back to the early 2000s, she's not a new artist, nothing is about to come out to change the situation. Her dance music hits at the height of the popularity of trance are enough to justify inclusion, this isn't a fringe local vocalist we're talking about. Absolutely finally, as an artist in a notable band (OceanLab) who has then released music with other notable artists, it's very common for them to have their own article. I'm particularly vocal because I was around music in the mid-2000s enough to know her name, hence I picked up on this AFD. I hope this all helps. KaisaL (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment I'm mistaken - "Satellite" was actually a UK #19 hit (here). This strengthens the argument that as the vocalist of a notable band who has collaborated on singles with other notable artists like Armin van Buuren, Justine absolutely warrants an article. The top twenty of the singles chart is a big deal - no wonder I'd heard of her. My keep is now strong. KaisaL (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KaisaL: you need only ping me once, you know this isn't my nom and my opinion is as good as the next. "vocal" is one word for it. I repeat - if there's sources it's OK with me as a BLP.. From TOOSOON unverifiable content. If sources do not exist,. . If they exist (above, or elsewhere) OK. It's not clear-cut why we need all these articles which I noticed are/were a COI/promo cluster, that's all. It's not clear to me which criteria of NMUSICIAN you think this satisfies? Maybe the BBC sources? WP:LIKE is something to consider with NOTINHERITED ("Satellite" notability is for OceanLab). Widefox; talk 11:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the double ping; As you had commented on some other subjects, I felt it appropriate to address one of those as well. Regarding WP:NMUSICIAN, she meets number six due to being part of a notable group that has collaborated with other notable artists in a solo capacity, and number eleven because those tracks certainly had major national radio rotation (certainly the one with Armin van Buuren), and Lourdes has eloquently mentioned the airplay chart position that contributes to that. If there's WP:COI issues, that's best handled in this instance by templates and editing to remove such a tone, but I don't think it can be the basis for the deletion of content with a clear claim to inclusion, even if you may not agree with that claim yourself. I assume any COI may be attached to Anjunabeats and the Above and Beyond family, which is a major area of this genre of music, but that has no impact on Justine's ultimate notability. As for WP:LIKE, that's not the case (I'm quite indifferent to trance music in truth), and I don't meet the profile of such a person if you look at my contributions. KaisaL (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. Not sure if the content has any COI issue anymore, but the talk details the self described and suspected COI editors. Agree with you COI is irrlevant for WP:N. The flipping of nationality was caused by two editors which both claimed inside knowledge. It should be fine without that info as we don't seem to have a source. (struck thru comment about borderline WP:N for OceanLab). Changed "Delete!" vote to a comment, as I really haven't checked the sources. Widefox; talk 13:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I think that overall this is a good example of the AFD process working properly - a proper discussion with detailed input leading to outcomes that improve the content. KaisaL (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6 looks OK (I think). Widefox; talk 13:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: I've improved the article with some sources, including a useful interview with a member of Above & Beyond that reveals a little on her origins as a singer. There's more stuff that would indicate notability that, sadly, I cannot find reliable sources for; Most notably, she appears to have toured the world and played Glastonbury with Chicane at the height of his chart-topping popularity in 2000, but I can't evidence this beyond a Discogs write-up unfortunately. I've also noticed the collaboration with Armin van Buuren charted highly on verifiable singles charts after all in a couple of European countries. I still think there's enough now either way. KaisaL (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You probably meant "depth". I thought I read "dearth..." :) Happens with me too all the time (in fact, once when I was arguing with Sinebot not too long ago, not realising it wasn't a real editor). Lourdes 14:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dearth or depth lol! I love it though, arguing with Sinebot? That is funny! I guess as long as I got keep right! Thanks Lourdes! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 15:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for notability as a singer who is part of a popular band and also has recorded other music sep. from the band (i.e. with other collaborators) MurielMary (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GNG and WP:BASIC clearly met. Hmlarson (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Massively fails GNG. The sources provided here mention the subject but do not go into any detail. In searching for sources using Google, etc. no other sources to support GNG can be found. Contrary to Widefox's claim, she has not charted on Billboard. She has appeared as a guest artist (or feature artist) for other musicians who have charted and there is no category for that in WPMUSICBIO. In short, nothing to support independent notability. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're absolutely wrong in dismissing any guest or featured spots, because for the purposes of WP:MUSICBIO a credit is a credit. My earlier comment sums this up eloquently: "It's a collaboration, and whether it says "featured" or "and" (or "presenting" or "with") is not relevant." To dismiss this well-established point within WP:MUSICBIO would be to dismiss a highly-established policy surrounding music. The specific Billboard chart was an airplay one, however charting so highly on it also goes a long way to supporting the point about major radio rotation as well. (The same charted in a number of European countries anyway, fulfilling the chart criteria.) KaisaL (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you think I'm "absolutely wrong". Please show me where in MUSICBIO it indicates what you state.
I can say unequivocally that you're wrong that it's a policy as it's a guideline. You're also wrong in the way you indented your reply here, but that's a different issue.
If the collaborations she's a part of meet GNG, let there be articles about them, not the collaborator. Each band member must show independent notability, which this musician does not. The fact that you can search the Finish charts to find her name does not mean that she is independently notable. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the guideline does state, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". That hasn't happened with Ms. Suissa. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody is arguing that she warrants her own article for being a member of OceanLab alone. What has been argued, with sources, is that she has had a verifiable singles hit in multiple national charts in a solo collaboration with Armin van Buuren. This is the very definition of "individual notability for activity independent of the band". She has also, on the balance of probabilities per the airplay chart position, had major national radio airplay. The fact that the page at WP:MUSICBIO does not spell out anything on the relevance of point two with regard to collaborations does not mean that these are not accepted. As for the nitpicking about phrasing and the way I indent my comments, I'll make no comment there. Given that this AFD is nearly at its conclusion and only you have argued to delete with a wealth of contributors arguing to keep, I am going to leave this dialogue there because I think the case has been eloquently made already. KaisaL (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And that argument does not hold water in terms of MUSICBIO. It specifically spells out that they have to demonstrate individual notability and the linked sources here mention her, but they don't confer notability on her. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just read over a comment from editor SusunW on another talk page and find that her statement is quite pertinent to this discussion, " It is NOT required that someone meet individual notability requirements if they meet GNG. If one has 10 articles in RS over time documenting that the person has been noted as a person of interest, it doesn't matter if they have done anything to satisfy the requirements of a specific field. Many people are not single-faceted and trying to box them into a specific field is like ignoring their other notable contributions. " from here: [19] Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And GNG is defined as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Are you saying the subject has had significant coverage? As I stated above, I don't see it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I stated above, "this article subject passes WP:GNG" just scroll up. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I stated above, "Massively fails GNG" just scroll up. You have not supported the fact that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Lacking that, your statement is false. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The information provided by KaisaL shows that this person meets NMUSIC, and the references provided by Xender Lourdes (as well as the references I was able to find as well) clearly show that any secondary reliable sources exist for this person and enough sources exist to assert significant coverage, a required criterion when determining WP:GNG. Hence, I believe that GNG is met, and the article should be kept. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Read the post above by Lourdes. Scroll up. I have supported the fact that there is significant coverage in reliable sources according to the sources (17) posted above by Lourdes. My statement is not false. I agree with Lourdes and her post. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 02:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a bare pass of WP:GNG. Note that being the featured artist on a charted song/album does not count as notability. SSTflyer 03:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Above & Beyond as I could've settled with a keep, but it's still currently questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated as my anon self (208.81.212.224) not a single source supports notability. Here is my analysis of the provided sources.
1 mention- about Ferry Corsten. No biographic information.
2 mention - about Avicii. No biographic information.
3 mentions - one is a caption, the other is passing. No biographic information.
4 mention - as having previously collaborated "is on the opening track". No biographic information.
5 mentions - as featured artist. No biographic information.
6 mentions - as featured artist. No biographic information.
7 Mention "and Justine Suissa". No biographic information.
8 mention - appearance by…. No biographic information.
9 mention - "featuring Justine Suissa " No biographic information.
10 mention - not even a RS for anything, ever. Just a track listing. No biographic information.
11 mention - not even a RS for anything, ever. Just a track listing. No biographic information.
12 My Russian is bad but I don't see the subject's name, and if it is mentioned, because the page is short I take it that it's just a track listing. No biographic information.
13 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.
14 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.
15 track listing No biographic information.
16 track listing No biographic information.
17 track listing No biographic information.
18 Same as ref 3
19 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.
20 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.
21 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.
22 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.
23 A peak position of a song on which she performed. No biographic information.
Sorry. Those of you who think that brief mentions constitute significant coverage. They do not. This massively fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I would like to comment to the closing admin, the subject fails GNG based on the analysis above. Those who claim it meets GNG are only looking at number, not the content of the posts. Most are track listings or entries of a single song in a track listing. None of them discuss the subject and so there's no way to actually provide any reasonable biographic information on the subject from RSes. As a result, there's no way to create an article that complies with WP:V let alone GNG. Cheers. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The presumption of WP:N favors notability. Here that presumption has not been rebutted. it is important to look at the total picture here and not simply a nitpick about track listings. A performer who has worked with multiple groups and has multiple recordings that charted is notable. This meets GNG. Montanabw(talk) 23:34, 7 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justine_Suissa&oldid=1089527961"