Talk:Connie Talbot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Connie Talbot has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] AfD Result Notice

This article was the subject of an AfD discussion closed on 25 August 2007. The result was no consensus. Xoloz 16:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for deletion

I have proposed this article for deletion because the subject does not meet the notability criteria for wikipedia.

(Have a heart) Please do not delete her entry, Connie Will become a star one day, she is an amazing prodigy of a voice, I would not have found her if not for Wikipedia! 02:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)160.96.200.34
If she becomes a star "one day", then on that day she can have a wikipedia entry. At the moment she is merely somebody who entered a talent contest. Children do this every week. The fact that this talent contest was televised does not make her a star. Stardom and celebrity status does not come with merely appearing on a television quiz show. If she was notable in her own right she would not have needed to be on a television talent contest. It is not about having a heart it is about realising where she is in the pecking order of notability right now. And right now, she's about as notable as my pet goldfish. 87.127.44.154 06:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, your pet goldfish is unknown. NOT Notable. Connie is known worldwide and is a topic of discussion, articles, photos, videos, and has been honored by many people who are also notable. I, like a few million other people, found the information about Connie on Wikipedia - and was glad I did! If the article is removed, and people come to Wikipedia and can NOT find information on Connie, I think that will reflect negatively on Wikipedia's reputation for being a source of information that people want to find. 209.173.108.133 15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the both of you to an extent. Granted, Connie did not win first place at the talent contest but she is after all still a hit at Youtube.com, don't forget that. If "Bus Uncle"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_uncle) warrants an article when the video only has 1.7 million hits, then Connie's video, with 9 MILLION hits, is very noteworthy indeed. Let the article STAAAY. Clockword 09:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The article on Bus Uncle is there because of reliable sources, not directly because of YouTube hits. However, I now feel that she is notable, because of the two minute record deal she had. Would be nice if someone could sort out the article a little though. J Milburn 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

She still has a record deal, and is releasing an album which is likely to chart in June 2008. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.138.150 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's absolutely no question that the article shouldn't be deleted now. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability concerns

I am not certain she is notable in her own right, and believe all available information should be merged back to Britain's Got Talent. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary? Has she done anything outside of that programme, or have any news stories been written about her and her alone? J Milburn 19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think she deserves her own article for the same reason that American Idol winners get their own article. —Lowellian (reply) 08:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Except she lost 84.9.37.253 23:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Note she's also notable for her extremely young age, which is what many media stories about her in the news focus on. Most people known for singing ability are not anywhere near as young (she's only six) when they first became famous. —Lowellian (reply) 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
She got to the semi-final, and she's only six. Also, Simon Cowell agreed to sign a 7-figure record contract for her. I think it's a bit different from similar concerns with a baby who plays a character on Neighbours, and editors were saying that he wasn't notable for an article; a baby can't act out of their own will, wheras it's very different with Connie Talbot. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
i think the whole point is to have information for people seeking it and i came here looking for information on her not on BGT, at least for the forseable future her own entry is warranted--taucetiman
I second the last comment - I was looking for information specific to her - not the show
I agree 100% with the last two comments.200.254.233.194 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
At the end of a day, she entered a contest, which she did not win; and she may have been "offered" a big recording contract but that was subsequently withdrawn (the words "Publicity Stunt" spring to mind. This person has not achieved anything but has simply appeared on a television programme and is therefore not notable enough for her own entry. 87.127.44.154 12:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
BIG KEEP: Is she notable? I looked up the definition online and found: "NOTABLE: noteworthy: worthy of notice ... luminary: a celebrity who is an inspiration to others ... celebrated: widely known and esteemed." It appears to me that a 6 year old girl who makes it to the finals in a competition that is almost totally adults and gets a recording contract (regardless of whether it was canceled) is notable. I think it is also clear from the numbers of hits that the world thinks she is notable. Her accomplishments at her age have made her highly notable - and worthy of honor. I will also be surprised if we do not see more of her in the future. 209.173.108.133 15:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we have our own definition of notability, and on top of the main one, we have more specific ones that may apply- for musicians and for people in general. However, we have an additional, more complex rule- we are not a news service. (That link is to an essay- see point five of this for the policy on the subject.) Basically, we have to determine whether she is notable independent of Britain's Got Talent. Is she notable in her own right? There seems to be a mix opinion on this. Probably, the record deal and the press surrounding it makes her so, but the Britain's Got Talent appearance has no effect on the matter directly. J Milburn 11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say that, though she did not win the competition, she is notable, as she is now a household name throughout the United Kingdom and beyond. Congratulations didn't win the Eurovision Song Contest, yet has an article. She's as notable now as Darius Danesh was when he lost a similar talent competition. To delete this page would be, quite simply, wrong. JPBarrass 10:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"Fame" and "notability" are not the same thing. And to equate loosing a talent contest to an award-winning number one single (pan-European) by one of Britain's most successful artists is just plain bizarre! B1atv 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh Concern: October 2007

I've just done a Google search and there are no new sources about this artist, apart from a news site which mentions her in passing in an article about Paul Potts [1]. And that mention is further reference to the final of Britain's Got Talent. The original afd discussion was no consensus. Two months on is there anything which might help bring consensus? Is there anything which suggests that she is notable TODAY? B1atv 12:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted J Milburn's removal of the notability tag. There are still concerns. The afd debate ended with no consensus. Since then NO new sources have been added to the article. Last week (see note above) I flagged up a request for further sources asking the same question - is she notable? Somebody appearing in a television talent show isn't notable. Somebody ALMOST having a record deal, isn't notable (see Wikipedia's policy on the notability of musicians. And since the show and the publicity-stunt record deal there have been no more mentions of her. As far as the news media is concerned she is a "wannabe" turned into a "has-been" who has never been an "in thing". Fame - especially temporary fame - and notability are not the same thing. If no new sources to suggest notability now come to light I will renominate as an AFD. B1atv 06:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There are four sources in the article. The last two are about her specifically. Yes, she failed in her record deal, but these are reliable, third party sources about her, and are not directly linked to the show. These two sources alone are enough to keep an article, plus the articles mentioning her in relation to the show, and the other articles about her failed record deal. Finally, a third type of minor mention will no doubt come up when the press discusses the upcoming series, as she was one of the 'highlights' of last series. I don't read that kind of paper, so I wouldn't honestly know if they are doing so and what they are saying, but I am pretty convinced that while this failed record deal, combined with her entry in Britain's Got Talent, does not make her notable, but the press surrounding both events does. J Milburn 17:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
References about what somebody did in the past in newspapers about something different do not make a person notable. Read the general notability guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability to see what I mean. The fact is that those four sources were available when this article failed to reach consensus at afd - nothing has changed since then to prove that notability is likely to happen any time soon. B1atv 23:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, she signed a record deal last week with (coincidentally enough) Rainbow Recoding Company. [2] --Kmsiever 22:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think that establishes beyond doubt that she is notable- more press has become available, and she is currently signed. I will add that information to the article, and remove the tag. J Milburn 08:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Record Deal

{nb: The following discussion transferred from my user-talk page. B1atv 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

I have boldly removed the notability tag from the article again, after someone showed a reliable source talking about a new record deal she signed last week, which I added to the article. I have also cleaned up the article significantly, so that everything is sourced, so I think I have removed all BLP concerns. As such, I believe the only remaining problem with the article is that it is a stub, and it is marked as such. Have you any thoughts on the matter? J Milburn 10:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

After consulting another editor, I have re-added the tag until we have reached a consensus either on the talk page, or via AfD. J Milburn 10:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw the Express and Star story cited in the article a few days ago, and I was going to add this as a source myself; but that article is a re-write of an article which was in the previous day's Sunday Mirror newspaper. The Sunday Mirror newspaper quoted nobody from the record company and only Connie's parents; the Express and Star story had no quotes other than that which appeared in the Sunday Mirror. I didn't add the story to the article because it didn't add up. To start with, there is no Rainbow Recording Company. It doesn't exist. WP:Music refers to an artist having an album released through a notable label so I checked to see if Rainbow was notable and couldn't find a single trace of it. The closest is Rainbow Records Ltd [3] which, according to Companies House (the UK register of companies) is dormant. The fact that the supposed "five-figure deal" is with a record company for which there was no trace prior to signing the "deal" and whose name is similar to the song with which she sang on Britain's Got Talent leads me to believe it is a vanity publishing outfit started by the parents themselves or by somebody close to them. I'm not knocking that approach, but it doesn't add to notability. The facts are that the Sunday Mirror reported "exclusively" that Connie Talbot has signed this five-figure deal and that an album will be out in November, but no other national newspaper has followed up the story. The two local papers - the Express and Star and the Sutton Observer have repeated the Sunday Mirror story but, again, there are no quotes from the record company - only the parents. No record company would sign an artist like this and leave publicity to the parents. More than a week after the story first appeared there are no other sources to back up the story and nothing at all on "Rainbow Recording Company" other than the small handful of articles stemming from the Sunday Mirror article on Connie Talbot.
I'm not saying that this development should not be included in the article - quite clearly it should. But it doesn't add to credibility of Connie Talbot. Obviously, if the album charts that would be different, but right now I can't seen anything has really changed to add notability since the previous afd discussion.
However, this deal does lend limited credibility to the idea that notability may be just around the corner. So I'll hang off a second referral to afd at this point; but reserve the right to do so should this "deal" turn out to be a hoax or a vanity-recording. B1atv 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

{nb: The above discussion transferred from my user-talk page. B1atv 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Gosh, you argue an excellent case. I suspect that the album will recieve a load of reviews once it is released, at which point we can start to treat her like any other musician. However, until then, we can leave the notability tag. J Milburn 12:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
A new wave of coverage has arrived- I saw this article today. (For the record, I read The Guardian, hate the Daily Mail, and saw this over someone's shoulder.) I haven't got much time now, but I will try and work as much of the Daily Mail article into this article as possible. -- J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Streetly -v- Sutton Coldfield

Before these edits turn into an revert-war, the Sutton Coldfield Observer, the newspaper covering the locality where Connie Talbot lives, describes her as coming from Streetly[4]. Other news services describe her school as being in Streetly. Sutton Coldfield is a suburb of Birmingham. Streetly is a suburb of Walsall. Neither Streetly nor Sutton Coldfield residents are particularly happy about being suburbs of their greater towns but that's how it is. People locally may therefore refer to Streetly and the Streetly area as being Sutton (being considered more posh than being from Walsall) but it isn't Sutton, just very close to it. 87.127.44.154 06:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Can anyone tell me why there's a banner on the article page suggesting that it is not neutral and which suggests reading the discussion about it, yet there is no discussion? As far as I can see, there is nothing in the article which is not neutral. Therefore, I propose that this banner be removed. JPBarrass 10:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Since neutrality is covered in the following biography banner, I shall remove its own banner, as it serves only to duplicate issues. JPBarrass 10:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing the edits and the article for discussion debate I think the neutrality concerns arose because of the arguments being used by editors to advance the "keep" argument (ie, have a heart, she will be big one day, etc). These imply, to me at least, that people are not approaching this subject from a neutral point of view but out of a desire to promote (or because their heart-strings have been touched in a "ah, isn't she cute" type way). I don't think the article as it stands is biased and support the removal of the neutrality template. Whoever put the template up didn't give a reason here and hasn't responded to your concerns. B1atv 12:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the artic


[edit] Basic Common Sense

You don't put the name of a 7 year olds school on the internet. Especially not in the same article that states that her parents have had to hire a bodyguard to keep her safe. THINK. Sean. S3an0h (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do. We don't hide information, as per the fact that Wikipedia is not censored, and it is already on the internet, as shown by the fact that it was well referenced. If the Daily Mirror will report it, why can't we? J Milburn (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

He was the winner of Britain's Got Talent. It is mentioned at least twice in the prose- is this not enough?
AFAIK, the associated acts generally refers to other bands etc. the person is in, not other people whom they've performed alongside in a competition. Eg Matt Corby (Aus Idol runner up this year) doesn't have Natalie Gauci (winner) as an associated act. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Removed. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The image should go in the infobox (and a free one brought in asap)
I've emailed http://www.connietalbot.com/ requesting for permission to use the ones they've got.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 11:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I have alreqady emailed them, and I am currently in contact with an employee at the site. J Milburn(talk) 12:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Me too, did he also emailed you this: Also could you correct the information in the Biog, Connie was not signed by Sony/BMG they had an option to sign her after the show, but decided not to exercise it. She was NOT dropped?--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 14:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't. I got in contact with the PA- she sent me a publicity shot, but didn't release it. As for your reply, that's not what the sources say. I realise it can be hard for people from outside of Wikipedia to understand, but we have to go with what the sources say. Connie's parents say she was signed, as do all of the articles I have seen. I'll have a quick Google around, see what I can find. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Now I have looked at the sources, there is no mention of a contract- it would seem she didn't sign. We do have a very solid source saying that two songs were recorded, so that can stay in, but I think the main prose in the article is correct as stands. The only inaccurate information was in the lead- I am reasonably sure the wording is now accurate. Are you satisfied with that? Perhaps you could tell your contact that the article has been fixed? If we are both in contact with different people, then hopefully one of them will be able to provide us with an image. J Milburn (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It suits me, i think my contact (John) didn't like the word dropped. By the way, he told me that he was going to complete the OTRS form i sent him for one of the pictures on the website.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 14:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That's excellent, well done. J Milburn (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good - we'll see how this goes (I can pass regardless). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "After the show, she was signed with Sony BMG, but the label then dropped her." - Reword the 2nd part of this a bit...perhaps also say why
Y Done Better? J Milburn (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "The first single from the album, "Over the Rainbow"/"White Christmas" was tipped as a potential Christmas number one." - don't link to the songs if they aren't her songs (same in the discog section)
Y Done J Milburn (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "whom she is said to have idolised" - citation needed
Y Done J Milburn (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You should refer to her as "Talbot", not "Connie"
Very right, fixed.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 11:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "We have been told to look for a company which looks after children."[7][8][9] - A few too many refs here...spread them around a bit for readability
Y Done
Y Done J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "which local police threatened to cancel unless crowds could be brought under control. " - is this relevant to her (ie. did the crowd go nuts because of her)?
Yes- that's certainly what the source implies. Do I need to explain this in the prose? J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to, but it would be nice...at the moment it's a bit unclear. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll fix that this evening. At college at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done J Milburn (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Connie and her grandmother enjoyed watching The Wizard of Oz together" - Quite frankly, so what? That's not notable info...
It's something a lot of sources talk about, the relationship between Talbot and her grandmother. I have rephrased that line a little- is that better? J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, much better - sorry 'bout that. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave a note on my talk page when you're done. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And passed - nice work. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Official German fansite'

Now, I don't speak German, but it doesn't look very professional or official. The English site doesn't link to it, and a German language site does not make a particuarly useful external link anyway. For these reasons, I do not believe the site should be used as an external link. J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


My Name is Christian [last name removed] ([email removed]) and I received permission from Claire Freeman by email that I may leave the German-language fan side in the net. Here an excerpt from the Mail:

On 7 Jan 2008, at 13:16, Claire Freeman wrote: Dear Christian, We are very flattered you have chosen to take the time to create your own fan website for Connie. It's no problem at all to have it on the net. all the best The Connie Talbot Management Team Claire Freeman PA to Marc Marot & John Arnison claire@terraartists.com

Unit A THe Courtyard 42 Colwith Road Hammersmith London W6 9EY Tel: +44 (0) 208 846 3737 Fax: +44 (0) 208 846 3738 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.151.156 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely fine to have a fansite on the 'net- that doesn't make it official, and whether or not you are allowed to have it, even if it is unofficially endorsed by Connie Talbot's management, it does not make a very good external link. As per Wikipedia's guidelines on external links- they should be accessible to the majority of readers (this is an English language site, and so a German language site will not be accessible to the majority of our readers) and sites which are not considered reliable sources should generally be avoided. Fan sites are not considered reliable, and so adding a link to this unofficial, German language fansite adds very little to this article. Please do not take this as an insult to your website- I am just working to keep this article a good standard by Wikipedia policy. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not removing the link at this time, because I do not wish to edit war. I will contact other editors who have been involved in this article for a third opinion. J Milburn (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have contacted Dihydrogen Monoxide and Yamanbaiia, two other editors who have been recently involved in this article, so that they can offer their opinion on the matter. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, i'm not sure if i agree with you there J, the site has like three sentences in German. The songs are all in English, and at the bottom there is a section that is written in both English and German. Per this Wikipedia guideline, one major fansite is allowed, and a google search led me only to one other fan club with it's own domain (http://www.connietalbot.eu/) which is also not English (Czech maybe?). The fan site allows people to listen to the songs (but not download them) so it does add something to this article.
BUT, i am concerned about copyright issues. If the manager said it's ok then they are ok with him having the music stream and the pictures (?), but what about the Britain's got Talent videos? those videos are copyrighted for sure and it's not up to Connie Talbot's crew to release them. So i weakly say no to the link because of copyright violations by the site. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 13:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I mus say I agree with Yamanbaiia here - the copyvios are also a concern. I also think (this is mostly my opinion) that despite being "allowed" one fansite, there rarely is a need to include one - the whole point it to make your article comprehensive enough so that either it, or the references it cites, will cover anything one might want to know (with the exception of lyrics, which we shouldn't be linking to (ever), and pr0n, which won't apply in this case (let's not go down that path, actually)). So yeah, I don't think the fansite is needed (I'm strongly against them, so don't take me too seriously!), and I support removal. Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds like consensus to me. I am removing the fansite on the grounds of it adding little to the article, and because of copyright concerns. J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

More than that, I copyright for the films, photos and sounds mention, I can not do that. I find that the opinion of three people, and certainly not by the fans. Many singers have also Hyperlinks foreign language Fansites linked. 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumhofer (talk • contribs)

You do not own the copyright to the films and music, and we do not link to copyright violations. I have no idea what "I find that the opinion of three people, and certainly not by the fans." means, sorry, so I can't answer that. Other articles do have links to fansites, but that doesn't mean it is a good thing. In any case, we are discussing this article here, not any other. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] School schedule

  • "A schedule was worked out so that Talbot could continue with her normal school activities while recording the album in her aunty Vicky's spare bedroom..." This needs clarification. Did she record the album in her aunty Vicky's spare bedroom or did she continue with her normal school activities there? Codewritinfool (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand your concern- as it is written now, it says what it is meant to. A schedule was worked out so that she could continue with school, and this schedule included recording the album in her auntie's bedroom, rather than some studio miles from home she was unfamiliar with. What is unclear? J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)