Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrystalCherry

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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CrystalCherry

Looks like a vanity page to me. Only 489 Google hits - the majority unrelated with the rest consisting of either this person's own sites or message board postings. Does not meet guidlines at WP:MUSIC and I can find no reference at allmusic.com or amazon.com. The article claims that this person is dead - I am unable to find any reference to this online, even on the sites listed (possible hoax?). Kurt Shaped Box 23:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - A clear an obvious vanity page and hoax. Claims to be signed to Arista records, and yet the record company's website has no mention of her, and Googling them both produces just the Wikipedia articles. Nick04 05:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. - Kurt Shaped Box 23:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't believe so, i think that this is for real. Rather the artist is dead or not is unknown. But i know for a fact that all the info is factual (except the dead part) Leo
    • Interestingly, the references to her death were added to the CrystalCherry article from the same IP used to post the above. --Kurt Shaped Box 12:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 06:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If she's dead, that's very sad, but it doesn't make her notable. TheMadBaron 07:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • According to her official site reports of her death have been greatly exaggerated. Anyway, whether she's alive or dead is irrelevant - it's still a vanity article. --Kurt Shaped Box 12:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree - the article DOES sound like a page of vanity and was not written in a neutral tone either. It contains miniscule unimportant details and Burns is/was not a standout artiste. And what's with with the subheading "Tragedy takes down a princess?" Vanity? I believe so. Kahlen 10:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Notable up and coming new artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystal Cherry (talk • contribs) 15:45, 24 October 2005 (user has only 2 edits)
This comment was done by a user calling themselves "Crystal Cherry", who did not feel the need to sign.Vulturell 07:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think we should her about new artist, to say she isnt relevent and something like a song is more relevant than a person. Come on, she has a new BIO up on her site and i assume that was place to eliminate confusion. Instead of trashing why not one of us redo the wiki bio of Crystalcherry and call it a day.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.167.126.211 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 October 2005 (user has only 2 edits)
  • Keep This article is terrible, that's true, but that doesn't warrant deletion. The person is real, notable, and deleting this article will not help wikipedia become more complete or accurate. Cleanup, absolutely; deletion, no. — Fudoreaper 00:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

*Neutral but clean up! The article is a complete mess, and looks more like a news/blogpage, but with some work it could be kept. But; do not keep the article if the only reason is that she is up and coming...if everyone of those were to be kept, 90% of WP would consist of failed popstars... Bjelleklang - talk 23:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable enough; being an up-and coming is not good enough to warrant an article. Bjelleklang - talk 18:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean it up. I don't care about this person, but she's clearly done a few things worth writing about. The page needs to take it down a peg so that it sounds less like a press release. Devotchka 00:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also see weirdness at October_21. Jimhutchins 03:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I to my understanding, when someone doesn't perform well with a major record company and they are huge like Arista, selling of their contract is something likely to happen. Why would someone who only sold 98 copies have their own arista page.
    • Please note that someone using this IP has already previously 'voted' above [1] and was also responsible for adding the false rumours of this person's death to the article [2] - also note the contradictory nature of the two edits. A more cynical man than myself might suggest that this was some kind of publicity stunt.--Kurt Shaped Box 07:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It is highly feasible that this is indeed a publicity stunt. First the "hacking" of God knows what that CrystalCherry is fuming about the kiss with Aaron Carter or something, then the death hoax. This is a cry of desperation on CrystalCherry's part. Probably a way to "win sympathy" - let's call it - so her 'albums' will sell more. As far as I know, Amazon doesn't even have her albums on auction. Kahlen 07:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
        • What "sympathy"? What "albums"? I don't think she has any albums out there that can be bought except online, at her website. Google would have turned up at least a few hits for at least one of them - and believe me, I checked and cross-checked them all. Any "American Idol" contestant deserves a Wiki entry more than this thing.Vulturell 07:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, she really isn't notable enough. Possibly userfy. - DDerby-(talk) 05:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable enough, plus it's a vanity page. Teklund 14:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Kurt No SHIT i was only using the information i got. Just because I was wrong doesnt mean an entire article must be deleted. You do alot of complaining, why dont you fix the damn article
  • Comment. If this article is deleted Crystal Clear...revisited, Now and Forever: The Very Best of CrystalCherry and Crystal clear should perhaps also be deleted. Teklund 07:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
If this article is deleted, those articles should certainly be deleted. Crystal clear should be deleted as copyvio, regardless, and Now and Forever: The Very Best of CrystalCherry could be merged with CrystalCherry, if kept. TheMadBaron 20:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as soon as possible. Vanity page all the way. The person that did this page is also updating other pages with pointless info about CrystalCherry. Look at this - http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Brooke+Anne+Burns%22&meta= - the five hits I got for "Brooke Anne Burns" - the full name of this person, all of them relate either to her death or stem from Wikipedia itself. No other sites reference her - professionally speaking - she doesn't exist in the music world. Also - Wiki says she has done "voice work for movies" - well, the IMDB lists no Brooke Anne Burns - the only Brooke Burns it has is the sort-of famous actress - not this one. Vulturell 07:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I see what you mean. Actually, I don't see a clear reason why this article should be kept. Notable artist? Up and coming? I beg to differ! Kahlen 07:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
      • CrystalCherry (the user) should have put all the info from her article on her user page. That way at least it would be kept online in some format. You don't see a clear reason of why this article should be kept because there is not a single reason why it shouldn't be deleted right now. It puts the Wiki deletion process to shame.Vulturell 07:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity/hoax --Ryan Delaney talk 07:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I am a Wikipedia admin and this article is near the top of my list of AfD debates to review next. But because of the length of this debate I am allowing it more time. The article's current contents are useless. It only gives her name and says that she has a website. That's not asserting any notability. I personally don't know CrystalCherry - I have never heard of her - so I have to take the article at face value. She may well be a really famous actress, but the article doesn't reflect that. So therefore it should be drastically rewritten, or else deleted. Even if it is deleted it can be recreated later with better content. (I also usually view a large number of "keep" votes from new users such as this as a sock puppetry effort, but that may just be cynicism.) — JIP | Talk 18:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The article's contents seem to have changed either during the time I wrote my vote or after it. It now includes considerably more information. Still, my comments about this article being soon to be reviewed, and the allegation to sock puppetry, still remain. If this debate is not closed by another admin first, I will review it myself, and consider every user who has only contributed to this debate as a possible sock puppet. The most likely result is "no consenus". — JIP | Talk 18:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
      • None of the information presented in the article 'as-is' checks out. There are no references to this person anywhere online outside the pages she and her spamming friends have created. Whether she is completely made-up, or simply another never-was is irrelevant to me - nothing I have seen convinces me of her notability. --Kurt Shaped Box 18:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --pgk(talk) 19:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Don't take offence - she just doesn't (currently) meet the standards for having a Wikipedia article about her. Rd232 talk 20:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About that

My daughter and her personal life is not for me to judge. That wasn't the only photo and surely not the most embarassing.

  • Where can I see the rest? Got any of her naked?
 *How Dare you, you pervert.  How dare you? you make me sick.

-annieB

  • I don't believe that photo has anything to do with CrystalCherry, actually. I am pretty sure I've seen it before, a looong time before this pointless "hacked cell phone"-"released pictures" crap. I think the photo looked just enough like Cherry that she "adapted" it as if it was her in the picture, in order to cause more "controversy". That's why user "CrystalCherry" kept adding a huge version of that same photo to the Aaron Carter article. In fact that's where I noticed her first.Vulturell 01:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Listen to how you talk Vulturell, my daughter was hacked back in june, what you are talking about is moronic. You want to call my daughter a liar so bad, you just don't have any evidence. You should be ashamed. But i doubt you have any. I can't wait until someone with real power and can prevent you from ruinging my daughters article. Futhermore there is no user by the name CrystalCherry, David is "Cherryrain" both of thier nick names mereged. You are sad little man, or woman or whatever.

-AnnieB


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.