Talk:Susan Boyle

Could somebody add that Perez Hilton has posted the video on his american gossip site http://perezhilton.com/2009-04-12-susan-boyle

Year of birth and age

There is no real chance that she was born in 1962. At the audition on 21st January 2009 she stated that she was almost 48. She is very likely 48 already in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salopian (talk • contribs) 02:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Digg & Reddit

Last I checked digg and reddit are user controlled sites. The contents or implication of anything on those sites doesn't meet WP:V and nothing can be sourced from them. There have been plenty of talk regarding the veracity of some of the submissions and how they become "popular" depending on who submits them, etc. There is no indication that the results of a digg submission are notable or reliable and constitute original research.--221.138.100.194 (talk)

14:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How is referencing digg & reddit original research? I didn't submit them, I didn't even create this article. You make little to no sense here. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Piers

Is Piers Morgan judging America's Got Talent as well as Britain's Got Talent? 96.242.5.155 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)iiDecember

Yes Back ache (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

While the majority of the edits were somewhat beneficial, there were enough errors to warrant an undo. Specifically, the spelling of multiple words was changed to reflect British english as oppossed to American (favorite vs favourite, skeptical v sceptical, etc). This article should stick with the standard Americanized English R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it should not. Please read WP:ENGVAR#Strong national ties to a topic, which states that article spelling should reflect the region of the world that the article's subject is from (or associated with). This person is from the United Kingdom, and the show she appeared on is "Britain's Got Talent", thus, using British English in this article is appropriate. Re-applying those changes. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected; carry on R3ap3R.inc (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

viral

According to Wiktionary, the meaning of "viral" whcih the section here apparently using is as an adjective. Should a section be headed by an adjective? Also, should a section be headed by a relatively rare word? Should we expect a lot of our readers to have to go searching for the meaning of a heading? 211.225.37.54 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone who has a computer and uses Wikipedia not know what viral means? Who is to say where the intelligence threshold may lie. There's nothing wrong with having to look up one thing to understand another. This is an encyclopedia afterall. Hrhadam (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Not one of the four people I asked (all users of Wik and one a computer programmer by training) had ever heard of viral in this sense.12:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)12:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

changed to "web" as a more appropriate heading NMChico24 (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

changed to "Social Media" since web would also apply to the "mainstream" coverage. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I, like tens of thousands of others, just viewed Elaine Paige's version of "Memory" on YouTube. I would not consider the comments on this video as a WP:RS, but just a note to those who will watch the article for the long term, there is a string of "I watched this video because of Susan Boyle" comments. I predict a RS will publish the trend fairly soon. --Moni3 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

authenticity

(please, editors please don't remove the following as being 'chat', although you would like to do to satisfy your sadistic desires) I think it is obvious she has talent, but you have to wonder if she is actually more experienced than we know at the moment and possibly have even been stylized specifically to get this old maid look - the 'ordinary' look that has worked so well for the other winners of the competition. Not saying it is the case, but if there is any information out there that can clarify the issue - in one direction or the other - I just think that would very relevant to add, because she looks just so much not a star that her performance is unbelievable. I think it will a greater concern with this contestant than any of the prior ones - it will be something that people come looking to get answered. --80.163.2.104 (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If any such information is out there, then it likely would be relevant to the article. It would certainly be inappropriate for the article to discuss only the positive aspects...that would be unbalanced. However, since this is a biography, we must be very careful with what to include, to ensure that all information is absolutely accurate and not just rumour. Given her very recent entrance to the stage, pun intended, it will take time for her background to make it into the media. Patience :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As the AfD for this article was recently forum shopped, to the help desk, I thought I'd review the article. User:80.163.2.104, might I ask you please to restrain your comments to the article and it's content. While the term "editors’ turd" may be an urban dictionary definition, I doubt that many contributers here would take kindly to being referred to as a "turd editor". and having their desires referred to as "sadistic". Please tone it down a touch, thanks. — Ched :  ?  14:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I strongly agree with Huntster; this is a BLP, and we should be careful not to be overly enthusiastic about adding information until it is verified by reliable secondary sources. At this point, I would think that her popularity on the Idol show was self-evident, and the number of YouTube hits indicates a wide interest of this topic. I would think that the coming weeks will allow a fair amount of expansion, without a need to engage in rumors, or speculation. — Ched :  ?  15:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

She was certainly a better singer than most of those teens that come on and sound like they're blowing a lung out to try to hit those high notes. She has a naturally strong voice. If she's a closet pro, it will come out soon enough, but it didn't seem like that was the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why "80.163.2.104" is looking for some kind of devil in the detail. I work in the music industry, but I don't need that to tell she's genuine. Of course, most of her 47 years have still to come out, but let it happen naturally & contribute when you KNOW something. It doesn't matter if she's a "closet pro" (I would be very surprised if she hasn't already done a few backing-vocal recording sessions for music I may know)... - 3 days ago, no-one had heard of her! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrone (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews

I think it is worth keeping for now as it is linked from an artical in wikinews, if this does get deleted, the executioner should go to wikinews and clear the linkBack ache (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevance?

This line seems somewhat irrelevant: "Also, the submitter was awarded the most subscriptions of the day. In addition, it was awarded 99 additional honours." Who cares if the person who submitted that video got a million subscriptions? It has nothing to do with Susan Boyle herself. 72.136.69.23 (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Genre: Pop, why? Hans (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Voice type: Soprano, why? (would prefer mezzo-soprano, if these categories are even to be considered for pop singers) -- megA (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

CNN article

Is there anything new in this article? [1] Edhubbard (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

International press coverage

If international press coverage would need some more 'proof': It was in all but one Flemish newspapers (not the financial one). Hbvl, Hln, DS, DM, Gva, HNb Hans (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)