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. Ignoring the extensive socking, unanimous agreement to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chantelle Lee (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)

Subject does not appear sufficiently notable. Article created by a SPA (with very probable undisclosed COI), sources are either dead links, listings, her management's website, local press mentions, or tabloids. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulfurboy: You approved this via AfC. Any comments? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. When the possible COI in the edit history is taken into account, the page appears to be vanity marketing. Not inherently notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you Emir of Wikipedia for inviting me to comment. I find it best that I remain neutral in AfDs of articles I've approved. First off it seems that there has been a lot of edits to the page after it was approve out of AfC, so keep that in mind before you pass judgement on me lol. The main reason I approved the article was because of the Sun article that was in the draft that I originally approved. It was a borderline case iirc, but I felt that the Sun article was enough to hold it up in AfD, but it seems the article has had a lot of additions with issues as pointed out by nom. Thanks and if you have any other questions ping me, just in case this gets lost in my watch list. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article should remain considering that the subject has substantial amounts of following across social media and she has a lot of articles written regarding her as an artist. Her recent single is gaining attraction, therefore I feel it should remain for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganSmith222 (talk • contribs) Blocked sockpuppet of User:Designaccountforher. Yunshui ^雲_水 20:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MorganSmith222: Social media following is not a criteria to keep an article or not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep For as long as the content follows guidelines I support that the article should be kept, with of course contributions and settled agreements of all parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designaccountforher (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@Designaccountforher: Does it meat the notability guidelines? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: I believe so. There is surely enough content online regarding the subject - being signed to Syco Records and verified on social media with popular music.

@Designaccountforher: Have you even read the guidelines as being verified on social media is irrelevant. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In regards to the notability of the subject she received substantial coverage from reliable and several sources evaluating her as an artist and her music. Those of being secondary sources providing evidence of her released songs, charity awareness, career and fanbase following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designaccountforher (talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC) striking duplicate vote. Primefac (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If notability was based on beauty and being a slay queen, she would have qualified, but apparently it isn't. She hasn't been nominated for any notable music award, neither has any of her songs made any notable chart. I'm unconvinced that this meets WP:NMUSIC. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON, since her musical career is barely 2 years old. Darreg (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Designaccountforher: your Wikipedia account has solely been used to edit Chantelle Lee's page or to comment here (apart from one unconstructive edit to another page). In accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest, please could you disclose your connection to the subject of this discussion? Thanks, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MorganSmith222: similarly, could you also disclose any Conflict of Interest? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Didn't meet WP:MUSICBIO guideline for lack of wide coverage as well as lack of any major award. The article just seems effort for expansion of her "quickly gained following on social media", if I may quote from the lead section. But unfortunately Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA  — Ammarpad (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC) {{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]

Comment user Designaccountforher has been banned from editing for 72 hours (until 20:29, 19 November 2017 UTC) for sockpuppetry, and user MorganSmith222 has been banned indefinitely in connection with this activity ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC) {{spa}} is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]

• Further comment: the former's account now has a permanent ban for continuing this behaviour ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Refs are paper thin - I checked them all, she doesn't pass gng or nmusic. Szzuk (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems to meet more than one of the music notability criterion (which is more than needed to meet notability guidelines). She has had published works (Newspaper articles, magazine articles, online media and has been on television interviews -Chrissy B show) Her music is released on major platforms such as VEVO, ITunes, Spotify - receiving broadcasting on radio and television. I am convinced the subject article should remain kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.143.57 (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but remove POV fluff. --American Canadian Expat In London 10404 (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• To closing Admin: There are two incorrectly formatted SPA tags added under my comment and Dom Kaos comment that you'll see above. These were added by American Canadian Expat In London 10404 (talk · contribs) 8 minutes after his account creation.  — Ammarpad (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment per the preceding comment, it appears that American Canadian Expat In London 10404 is making a fairly crass attempt to discredit both Ammarpad and myself. As our editing histories demonstrate abundantly, neither of us remotely close to being an SPA. Rather than revert these unconstructive edits, I'm happy to let them stand: any half-competent user of Wikipedia can navigate their way around the site to see what edits have been made, and draw their own conclusions regarding motives ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps just too soon, but not notable at the moment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only sources are trivial mentions in the local paper or gossip in the tabloids. Not good enough for a BLP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:18, 23 November 2017 (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.