Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/CrystalCherry

message: I've noticed that Angel Carter has her own article.  What has she done to derserve one.  I believe you all have it out for this artist and i think you all should be reported.  And for the record, I am not brooke.  Sorry I just work on her site
:Comment: Personally, I wasn't aware of the existence of Angel Carter before you pointed the article out for me, and the same goes for CrystalCherry until I saw the this AFD. Anyway, as they are two similar artists, the easiest thing to do is to search google for "ChrystalCherry" and "Angel Carter"...and the results: 605 for the ChrystalCherry, and 10.100 for Angel Carter. 
:This is not to say that Angel Carter isn't to be deleted, but it clearly shows a big difference between the two! Bjelleklang  -  talk 16:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I think you're all just jealous

message: You went on and on about this artist's career isnt real, i have found not only a site that houses her music.
http://music.lulu.com/content/176923  I doubt you undestand what an indy artist must go through.  For example can you find any music on stayefish on Amazon?  No, you can't must indy artist have issues with there releasing of music.  Her fueds are word of mouth, the hacking maybe a matter of dispute.  However her music is easy to find if you actually look.  Angel Carter is only known because she is related to a backstreet boy.  Other than that, she is famous for doing nothing.  This is personal, i can tell when anyone write the hateful and all around things like you all have been doing.  Her chart status however, i will admit, i can source, but i know for a fact she have been getting radio time.  Along with the fact "CrystalCherry" can be confused with  "Crystal Cherry" so try looking under both.  Don't condem just because you have a personal vendetta.  It's unprofessional.  Keep that in mind.
:*Users should be aware that lulu.com is a print on demand company - being listed there is not an asserttion of importance and notability. --Kurt Shaped Box 18:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: Did a search for one of her albums; "Crystal Clear...revisited", which returned 7(!) results on Google, one being WP, three being WP mirrors, two being her personal blog/website, and one being some forum, where only the word "crystal" was found. Notable? I think not! Bjelleklang  -  talk 18:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "*Arm of the Angels released March 16, 2000 (# 15 on the Occult Music Charts)
*Deconstruction released July 8, 2000 (# 33 on the Occult Charts) "
I searched. There is no such thing as "Occult Music Charts" or "Occult Charts".Vulturell 19:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to search for it. I found it -http://www.witchvox.com/. There's a small section in the bottom "Crystal Cherry" - written by CrystalCherry, it says "Audience: 3". The little note by that "CrystalChery" box says "Web Note: If you want to share your mp3 file and your story, log in a add your performance... To experience the performances already posted"". That's exactly what Cherry did. Maybe I should submit myself there next week. Vulturell 20:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Proof

message: I created this article, (the original) and it is not only but accurrate.  I find it hurtful that you would call my daughter and I liars.  You have every excuse for why she is "invented" but has it ever crept into you judgemental minds that it is all true.  She is more than notable, she is extrodinary.  You should all be ashamed of how you are doing her, she has never disrespected you, though you treat her like trash.
 -AnnieB
:Comment. The contents of articles in Wikipedia must be written from a neutral-point-of-view, and also must be verifiable from other sources, excluding the subjects own website/blog. As it is not possible to verify most of the information in the article, it does not conform to WP:Verifiability, and as the article does not pass any of the criterias listed in WP:MUSIC it is to be deleted. This might seem cynical if you are new to Wikipedia, but a necessity in order to avoid Wikipedia from being filled up with articles about unknown/irrelevant subjects Bjelleklang  -  talk 22:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. What you are talking about, AnnieB, is called "original research" - which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. The information may well be true - but the problem is we can't confirm any part of it. Like in the legal profession - you must not only be right, but be able to proove you are right. In this case, you need media publications, articles, etc. not personally submitted by the subject of this article (the two sites - Luna and the Wiccan one - contain info that was submitted by Cherry herself). Vulturell 03:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Comment. With respect to your comment, AnnieB, no one was lying and no one called Brooke a liar. You're saying that she is extraordinary, so we believe you, although you ARE her mother after all, and exaggerations are normal since offsprings are the pride of all parents. But notable? Not just yet. You know what's missing, Mrs Burns? External sources. Articles need to be cross-referenced. Even though an article could be 100% true, without external sources (those who aren't affiliated with CrystalCherry), the article cannot be proven to be true. Why don't you supply us sources that are reliable, and aren't created by CrystalCherry herself? For once, when I search for "Brooke Anne Burns" or "CrystalCherry", I would love for another website to be result #1 instead of Wikipedia. I also understand your daughter's ego might have been bruised by all this, but please do understand, we're just trying to do what needs to be done. Kahlen 09:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You know what's still bothering me? The fact that the picture of the kiss between your daughter and Aaron Carter is still on the website crystalcherryonline. Your daughter stated she was embarrassed of the picture being leaked, yet it's still on her website. It just makes no sense. Does she WANT to be embarrassed? If you are not responsible of running the website, you can always inform the webmaster to kindly take it down to prevent your daughter from experiencing furthur humiliation.Kahlen 04:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This is annoying. I have so many questions I don't know where to start. Like, say, why give us a link to yet another copy-and-paste version of the exact same insipidly-written biography from her official site? Why spell it "Pouter Rican"? Is that through some geniune error or does someone out there really believe that's the way human beings spell Puerto Rican? Why keep making statements that lead me to believe you think Burns' eligibility to be listed here depends on whether or not she has "done something to us" or not? And if that's the way the system works here, then why do people like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Dr. Phil still have a Wiki entry? 
And, for the record, I was genuinely offended when I first opened this page and read sentences like "Burns' camp was flooded with notices of her death" or "this was all believed to have happened online" (for the Guthrie gossip crap). The second sentence and the whole bit of info relating to it are just inexcusable garbage, while the first sentence is a typical example of ridiculously sensationalistic trash that can't even begin to be proven to be true. Vulturell 05:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I am her mother