Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Got Talent (season 5 auditions)

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 merge to America's Got Talent (season 5). I have just deleted the season 4 auditions article, as the AfD result for that was delete, but only a redirect got deleted. The consensus here is that the auditions are not sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article. The content should be selectively merged to the main season article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

America's Got Talent (season 5 auditions)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, a directory for every contestant who ever auditioned for a talent show, which is what this article is. Hekerui (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep America's Got Talent (season 4 auditions) is also like this. Also, seasons 1, 2, 3, all contain lists similar to the one in America's Got Talent (season 5 auditions). MR. PreZ 20:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF? Hekerui (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce and Merge the article into America's Got Talent (season 5). Agree with nom. that it shouldn't list every audition--only provide a summary and list in the main article.173.8.11.157 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said for season 4: Reduce and delete - it is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. All the info here can be summarized very succinctly in the season article (if you are on a TV show with 200 other contestants it does not make you notable enough to have an entry on wikipedia). Nergaal (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If I'm not mistaken, this list will never be complete, because while thousands of auditions occur for the show, only a few are actually televised. Thus, I'm assuming not all rejected acts are or can ever be included. (Indeed, the season 4 article seems to lend credence to this by saying the acts accepted/rejected "include" explicitly.) If there is anything worthwhile and sourced to merge to the main article, I would not oppose a merge/redirect, but as it stands, this list seems to fail guidelines on indiscriminate information. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This style of listing every contestant on AGT developed in Season 2 and has continued all the way since. There was a discussion on whether the auditions page for season 4 should be deleted, and the result was keep. The show is unique and unlike most shows on TV as it shows a variety of contestants, and to delete all the information would be a loss. Plus, if it was integrated into the main page (which is already very detailed and crowded with info), you would get one very hard page to navigate, as is what happened with the Season 2 and 3 articles. The show is not American Idol, where all the contestants are singers, but a varied competition with acts from many genres. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – that the other seasons have an article similar to this is not a good enough reason to keep. Anything of value in this article could I guess be Merged to America's Got Talent (season 5). Jenks24 (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form, the only thing to remove would be the rejected audioners and by that logic you would only have one article about the one winner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bee well (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC) — Bee well (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.