Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Gokey

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 keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Gokey[edit]

Another article for a non-entity reality TV contestant. Fails WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Unless this guy wins (which will be a long time off anyway), releases an album/single or is found to be noteable in some other way, then it's delete, delete, delete. Dalejenkins | 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Keep. American Idol finalists get their own articles. They are notable by virtue of the fact that they are members of the Top 12 of one of the, if not the, most popular reality TV shows currently airing. The vast majority of AI contestants go on to make records, star in Broadway productions, etc. The article needs to be expanded over time, not deleted. Hermione1980 23:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. They need to pass the guidlines that I mentioned previously. And none of this Broadway/album stuff has occured yet - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore this article should be deleted. A sub-section of the American Idol Series 8 will do in the mean time. Dalejenkins | 23:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no excuse aswell. Also, as you are a member of WP:IDOL and declare on your page that you are an American Idol fan, I feel that WP:ILIKEIT needs to be considered. Dalejenkins | 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this item as well as the following two, I'm inclined to say delete and redirect until such time as the subjects become notable in their own right, per WP:MUSIC, etc. A subsection of the article about AI Season 8 article is fine until then. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable other than participating in American Idol. -down load | sign! 23:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Biographies of contestants: "For contestants, it has been decided that only finalists should qualify for their own article based on their participation in the show. Semi-finalists who are not otherwise notable are redirected to their season's article." Gokey passes criteria #1 and #9 from WP:MUSIC and passes WP:RS with referenced articles from ExtraTV, WNCT, WITI Fox 6, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Reuters, Access Hollywood and Lufkin Daily News. Aspects (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDOL is a WikiProject, not a guidline. It means absolutely nothing. Dalejenkins | 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but User:Aspects also addresses WP:MUSIC and mentions independent sources... -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above except User:Download. ApprenticeFan (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a silly, point-y nomination. There is plenty of precedent for articles on AI finalists, which the nominator would have known had s/he bothered to check. H₂O Shipper 01:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument violates WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Dalejenkins | 01:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments can be summed up as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and your behavior here as WP:POINT. H₂O Shipper 03:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article meets WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. And if so - how? This consistant fan-boyism and WP:ILIKEIT is clouding the real argument here. I hope the closing administrator takes this into account. Dalejenkins | 01:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can ignore the ILIKEIT arguments, but I'd like to see some response to the more substantive arguments that have been offered. In particular, there are multiple independent sources cited in the article. Could you explain what is inadequate about them? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Aspects. Meets notability guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep, keep, keep Per the excellent references and arguments above.

Nominator, lets also keep in mind WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is underneath all of the Acronym soup here.

WP:IDONTLIKEIT:

"This may include subjective opinions concerning...the inclusion of what may be deemed trivia, or cruft."

i.e. calling other editors' opinions "fan-boyism"

Lets handle all of the nomintor's acronym soup arguments, one by one.

Nominator writes:

"WP:IDOL is a WikiProject, not a guidline. It means absolutely nothing."

Response: WP:ONLYESSAY:

"Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions...Some may also consider it insulting, as it essentially suggests that their opinion (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be."

By the nominators own standard, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT means "absolutly nothing" also, since they are mere "essays".

Nominator quoted: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS

Response: please click WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS:

"the term can be considered insulting to people it is applied to."

Just like calling other editors opinon fan-boyism is insulting under Wikipedia:Don't call things cruft WP:IDONTLIKEIT and especially this gem Wikipedia:Cruftcruft

"I hope the closing administrator takes this into account": The nominator has been uncivil to editors here, by:

using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, (Read page)
"fan-boyism", per Wikipedia:Don't call things cruft WP:IDONTLIKEIT
Stating that another editors opinion means absolutly nothing, per WP:ONLYESSAY

I also ask the deletion nominator to respond to User:GTBacchus statement:

"there are multiple independent sources cited in the article. Could you explain what is inadequate about them?"

Ikip (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. I remind participants that we are an encyclopedia, not tabloid trash, and that regardless of a few appearances Gokey has made on some TV show, coupled with requisite mentions in his local paper, he's still an utter nonentity. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remind you that every precedent is against your haughtily expressed opinion here. Your opinion that he is a "nonentity" doesn't matter at all. H₂O Shipper 05:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. A touch of hauteur is not amiss when dealing with such poor excuses for article subjects. 2. My "opinion" happens to be backed up by a lack of - as WP:RS encourages - coverage from "the high-quality end of the [mainstream media] market". Of course it's too much to expect for a journal article or (heaven forbid) a book to mention this nonentity (which is in fact what he is), but in-depth coverage by, say, The Wall Street Journal or The Economist would go a long way to assuaging my doubts. That too is lacking, so the doubts persist. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You ARE quite arrogant, and doing yourself no favors in being such. There's no requirement from WP:RS that the sources meet your personal requirements. This article is going to be kept, your attitude notwithstanding. H₂O Shipper 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I'm cool and composed (and unlike you, mindful of WP:CIV), though dismayed to see our precious domain befouled by such common dreck. Formal requirement or not, it's troubling that editors so rarely consider whether we should have a particular article, not whether we can have it; and in any case that excerpt comes directly from WP:RS. I happen to be rather partial to lost causes (which in the long run are so often proven right), so, with no realistic hope of swaying other participants, the final outcome is immaterial to me in this instance. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why do we go through this EVERY SINGLE YEAR? We have a very long precedent for this. AI finalists receive articles. Period. All you need to do is to look at any of the templates here or the Wikiproject for Idol. Or the many many previous AfDs on this matter. American Idol is such a big show in the United States (it's the #1 program by several ratings points year after year) and there has been such success to come out of the show (38 charted artists in 7 seasons according to Billboard magazine) that the finalists are notable just for being on the program. Just do a google search for Alexis Grace, Danny Gokey or Michael Sarver and you will see I mean. I wish we could stop doing this every year. Hate to be snippy here but I'm tired of saying this every single year. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, just because something has been done one way, that doesn't mean we're prohibited from discussing a different way to do it. Inertia is a terrible argument, for anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't like the long precedent that has been set, so you denigrate it as "inertia." That doesn't mean that the basic arguments being presented for deletion here hold any more water. H₂O Shipper 15:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa there. Don't tell me what I don't like. I have no opinion about the long precedent that has been set. I do believe that we may revisit any consensus at any time. I have absolutely no love or sympathy for the IDONTLIKEIT arguments either - they're just as crappy as the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. I'd like to see more arguments addressing the actual existence of reliable sources from which a properly neutral and verifiable article can be written. Is it too much to ask that people discuss that question, rather than throwing essays at each other all day? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CCC - official policy. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a reference that ran in the New York Times. Not that the Gokey article needed further sourcing, but the complaints here seemed to be that the sources weren't high-profile enough or something. Never mind the fact that he sang for 25 million+ people on the most-watched television show in the world... H₂O Shipper 17:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO requires non-trivial coverage; the NYT mention seems pretty trivial. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in reply to Watershipper's "Never mind the fact that he sang for 25 million+ people on the most-watched television show in the world"... You know, it really has nothing to do with that. The only point of the notability requirement is that we need enough reliable, independent sources from which to write an article. Either non-trivial coverage exists in multiple independent sources, or it doesn't. If it does, then we keep the article - no question. If it doesn't, then we have to delete the article - no question.
Subjective notability has nothing to do with it, popularity has nothing do with it. ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT have nothing to do with it, and OTHERCRAPEXISTS (by any name) has nothing to do with it. There are specific and concrete notability criteria out there. The subject meets them, or else he doesn't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do you give no weight at all to precedent? And what do you do with stubs? Your arguments (and especially Biruitol's) seem to simply ignore that we have stubby articles all over the project. And long precedent says that AI top 12 finalists are notable, for being that. And if you look at the Gokey article particularly -- which is far less stubby than the Grace and Sarver ones -- has plenty of reliable sources. And the Grace and Sarver articles are stubs, in which precedent seems to protect them. I have no earthly idea why deletion is even being considered in these cases. There's no precedent at all for deletion of these type of articles. H₂O Shipper 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't "give no weight at all to precedent". I just don't believe it trumps rational consideration in the present. Consensus can always change. The idea that I'm ignoring the existence of stubs must be a misunderstanding. My only argument is that it is "ok" to have a bloody conversation, and that "OMG DO WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS AGAIN?!?!1!" is an inappropriate response to a good-faith discussion.
As for what I do with stubs, I tend to sort them into categories, improve them, link them up as necessary, and generally help them to not be stubs anymore. I've rescued quite a lot that way. If they seem to be about a topic that is non-notable, I might nominate them for deletion.
Now, have I ever said that we should delete this article? Have I ever said that this article lacks reliable sources? No. I'm the guy, if you scroll up a bit, who was asking DaleJenkins why he was ignoring the sources in the article. I'm in favor of keeping suitably sourced material.
The value of precedent at Wikipedia is that it points to discussions that have previously been held, and it can indicate a previously established consensus. The power of precedent, however, only derives from the quality of the arguments that established it in the first place. If we realize we've been doing something wrong, we're not bound by some kind of suicide pact to keep doing it wrong. No decision is made on Wikipedia that may not be revisited. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What puzzles me, Watershipper, is why you're arguing any point other than the clear trump card: the existence of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. If you make that argument, then reasonable people such as myself will flock to your side. If you go off-topic and start talking about subjective notability, or disparaging those who disagree with you, then uninvolved Wikipedians will be more wary of supporting your position. Keep your eye on the prize, and you'll "win". What's so hard about that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, GTB. I think that at various points, I've been confusing your arguments with Biruitol's. I've tried to point out that there are multiple reliable sources regarding these contestants. However, I think I would be remiss to not mention the long precedent that says that AI finalists are notable because of that fact. H₂O Shipper 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted; no worries. Lots of people make assumptions around here, and I've learned not to take it personally.
It is good that you bring up the long-standing precedent of keeping AI finalists. That is precisely the decision that some people are asking to revisit. So, what can we say about why that decision was compelling at the time? Is it true that an AI finalist will necessarily have non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, or are we making an exception to the general rule that we relate facts in articles that can be verified in multiple independent sources? I'm open to either answer, or some other one... what'll it be? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Keep It's not like this is some random person who got eliminated in the first round. Even though the article could easily be expanded, it's no reason to just delete the article. And before you accuse me of WP:ILIKEIT, remember; I'm just a neutral outsider. I see this escalating into a potentially nasty argument; let's just stop before it gets out of hand. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to avoid all the annoying talk about ILIKEIT is to stick to source-based arguments. If you want an article kept, point out the non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. If you want an article deleted, claim that such coverage doesn't exist. All else is red herring. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP H2O Shipper has some strong bias and ownership issues. Despite their deleting relevant and sourced material this is still an acceptable article. Gokey has been in many sources already and I've added them. When some non-blog sources discuss the Pentecostal church and his beliefs systems we can re-add those as well. He's sponsoring a benefit for the foundation in March and that's already being talked about. This is only the first week of this competition, imagine what a second and third week will bring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.12.246 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete, utter nonsense. It's junk like this that make BLPs difficult to maintain. No one is deleting "relevant and sourced material." Rather, we're keeping irrelevant, unsourced junk out of the article. You attempted on numerous occasions to introduce wikilinks to the controversial Oneness doctrine into the article. You've tried to litter the article with references to the name of Gokey's church, and you've tried to include irrelevant external links as well. Your actions there actually make a halfway decent argument for deleting the article until more eyes can be found to keep POV-pushers at bay. H₂O Shipper 00:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being a bully, again. My "littering" the article was all of two mentions, in separate sections. He is the praise and worship leader in the two Wisconsin churches. That is a prominent role. If there was an article about the church I would have linked there instead. This was explained to you but you choose to ignore those truths. The churches website discusses Gokey but you saw fit to delete that as well. No problem, other sources will discuss it soon and your edit warring will be more obvious to all. You forgot to mention that I added almost every source on the article and brought it into compliance repeatedly with wikipedia standards. Just quit while your ahead and pick on someone else who deserves your bad faith screeds. You have a serious bias and should check a mirror first before accusing others of POV-pushing.

Explain, in detail, what POV that I am pushing. Yours is obvious. H₂O Shipper 01:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you both stop talking about each other and start talking about sources for this article? Otherwise, go get a room. This discussion is not about the huge crush you're developing on each other; it's about an encyclopedia article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficiently sourced, and most importantly, we have articles (the notability of which is established) on all previous American Idol contestants. This indicates that, regardless of a contestant's performance, they will be notable after the show ends. Why delete an article just because there are a few months before someone becomes notable, when we know they will? If we deleted all the "tabloid trash" and related stuff, Wikipedia would, most likely, suffer harm. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 02:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTALBALL would beg to differ with that reasoning. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ~~Dalejenkins obviously loves all the attention because he probably is going to release an album soon.~~ This debate is pointless, stupid, and a waste of time, please give my 30 seconds back!!!--23prootiecute
KeepAre we kidding ourselves? The editor who wants to delete the article says "another non-entity reality Tv contestant". Uh, its only the top twelve of the most successful reality TV show ever. Every top twelve should have an article.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with pointing out that the subject of the article has received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources? That's the lone reason to keep - any other argument is going to look like ILIKEIT or OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion. Mine: just some guy who happened to appear on some show a few times. More important, fails WP:N (lack of multiple non-trivial mentions in what are preferably high-end sources) and WP:BLP1E. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our "opinion", it's a fact. American Idol is the most-watched show on television. Long-standing precedent says that AI finalists are notable. There are multiple, reliable sources for this article, and the other two. Your requirement that they be "high-end" is just nonsense, nothing more and nothing less. H₂O Shipper 15:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the "high-end" thing is nonsense. Now right here, you assert that there are multiple reliable sources. WHY DON'T YOU STICK WITH THAT ARGUMENT? It's the persuasive one. Long-standing precedent is only meaningful until there's a new consensus to change it. That new consensus may or may not be forming now.
Seriously - stick with the good argument. Drop the bad ones. They're not helping you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "my requirement"; WP:RS encourages sources that come from "particularly the high-quality end of the market". Furthermore, appeal to precedent is dubious if the precedent itself is dubious; we are an encyclopedia, not a repository of random teevee fads. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, Biruitorul, WP:RS encourages good sources over bad ones. However, the basic requirement is non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Pages that meet that requirement will be kept, even if the sources aren't as high-quality as we may like.
Now, you're either going to argue that the article in question lacks independent sources, or you're going to wander further off-topic. The choice is yours. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final trump card is always WP:IAR. Does this article improve the encyclopedia? I think not. But I also doubt that's very convincing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't see that leading anywhere productive in this case. It's interesting... if you think the article doesn't improve the encyclopedia, does that necessarily mean that deleting it would do so? I could imagine the answer being no... -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of redundant arguments that are on this, and the other 2, AFDs[edit]

Please read - Dalejenkins | 17:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do love overlinking. You seem to have no idea how AfD works, but you definitely love ovelinking. H₂O Shipper 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment here: I rely not solely on precedent in my "keep" recommendation, though precedent in this case is long and persuasive. However, if long established precedent alone is not enough to sway, it should be noted that all three articles have 1000+ Gnews hits. This series of AfDs seems far more about what some wish were the case regarding standards for inclusion in Wikipedia than what actually is the case. H₂O Shipper 19:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... are you saying these three people have received non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent sources? Or are you saying they haven't, but that doesn't matter. It would be cool if it were clear which of those two you meant... If it's the former, be CLEAR about that. Name the sources. List them. PROVE that we've got non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent sources. Once you do that, arguments for deletion will vanish like the morning dew. Stop defeating yourself, Watershipper. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And well done, you also just broke WP:POPULARPAGE. And WP:CIVIL. Dalejenkins | 21:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, leave it, Dale. WP:CIVIL isn't a law, and telling someone they "broke it" just makes you look like a lawyer. Please don't be a lawyer. It makes it more difficult for people to agree with you. On the other hand, please do reply to direct questions I've asked you in this thread, which you seem to be ignoring. If the other side refuses to address relevant points, maybe you can show them how it's done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you won't comment on all the other points I've made - just WP:CIVIL. OK.... Dalejenkins | 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dale, I'll cheerfully comment on all your points, the civility one is just the one that got under my skin the fastest. Most of what you said besides that is fine, but slightly off-topic. Now, however, you've made a very helpful post below. Thank you for that, and I'll comment further below. I do hope you'll note what I said about lawyering, because it's important. It can mean the difference between a 5-minute argument and a 5-month one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, maybe one should first wait till the season is over before one tries to judge their popularity, for all we know the best selling artist in a million years might come from this season. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--[[User:23prootie|23prootiecute]] (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source Analysis[edit]

[1] - Local newspaper/publication. There's probably articles like "Bus Driver saves cat" in that paper, but those people don't deserve articles. Fails WP:RS.
[2] - From the webpage of a tabloid/gossip collumn-style TV show. About as reliable as citing Heat or The National Enquirer.
[3] - Primary source. We need reliable secondary sources.
[4] - Again, local news - see above. And its only a trivial mention about his religion - does not prove notablility.
[5] - Written by FOX, therefore its a primary source.
[6] - Same as the first one - even the same author/publication.
[7] - Although a reliable source, its only a short trivial piece to mention that he made it through to the next round. Again - it doesn't show notablility.
[8] - Tabloid trash - see a few point above.
[9] - Not only just a local publication (see the first point) but its an article on somebody else and Gokey is mentioned in just 2 sentences.
[10] - Local publication - see first post/
[11] - This source is the most reliable, but only states that he auditioned for a TV show, his wife died and that he is religious. Again - this doesn't establish notability.

So are we in agreement that these sources are dreadful, meaning that the subject fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTE? Or are AI fans still going to argue otherwise? Dalejenkins | 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this, Dale; it's very helpful. Now it will be much easier to talk about the sources.

Of those you listed , #3 and #5 are not independent, and #9 is an article about someone else - Gokey's coverage in it is trivial.

So, throwing out the trivial and the non-independent, we've got 8 pieces of source material with which to determine notability. They consist of:

2 stories in a local paper (The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) 1 6
1 story in the Religion section of a local news site from North Carolina - this story is about 2 people, Gokey being 1. That's not trivial. 4
1 story on "examiner.com" (local in Seattle?) with an AP byline. Non-trivial. 10
1 from Reuters UK. Non-trivial. 11
1 story in the New York Times, which is about Gokey and 2 others. It's also quite short, and un-detailed. Borderline trivial, I'd say. 7, and
2 stories on "entertainment news" websites. I'm not sure these sites are known for their reliability... 2 8

Now, notability is established not by any single source, but by the presence of non-trivial coverage in multiple sources, independent of the subject, which are known for their reliability. I would say that the four local news items and the Reuters UK story combine to satisfy that requirement. I'm not aware that local newspapers are deprecated as reliable sources. I'm open to hearing what others think.

I would also note, as a general point, that if we want to have special cases where musicians in special situations get an article no matter what, then that needs to be written into WP:MUSIC if we're to expect anyone to know about it. This is similar to how we handle businesses (or did last time I looked): any company on the Fortune 500 list gets an article, even if they don't otherwise satisfy notability criteria. Such cases are much easier to deal with when they've been centrally discussed and written down. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into American Idol (season 8) along with Alexis Grace and Michael Sarver. There simply is not enough information on them to warrant their own articles yet... Eventually when more info comes we can re-create the pages, but there just isn't enough right now. The info. will just be redundant and duplicate here. Ejfetters (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah but there will be more information coming. That isn't really a reason to delete an article. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Given that Entertainment Weekly, a not-so-well known poor man's showbiz tabloid related to the cheap cable network CNN has an entire webpage] dedicated entirely on American Idol contestants, it's pretty clear that the topic is not notable.23prootiecute
Keep American Idol Top 12 finalist, what more notability would one need?! --Ekabhishek (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dalejenkins, please restrict your arguments regarding above issue to this page, there is no point starting an argument at a talk page! --Ekabhishek (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AI finalists qualify for their own article - they're notable by definition. — CJewell (talk to me) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess the issue is that "notability" has a specific definition on Wikipedia, and we need to demonstrate that subjects of articles meet that definition. Arguments addressing the Wikipedia notion of "notability" will be more effective than the other kind.
At Wikipedia a topic is deemed "notable" if: It has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple sources that are (a) independent of the subject, and (b) known for accuracy and reliability. It means nothing more nor less than that, around here, so that's really the best thing to address in this discussion. Thus, AI finalists are not notable "by definition"; they're notable if and only if they've been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources - which I'm pretty sure they have. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per previous rationale. Sam ^Blab 01:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Obviously notable. Jason (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A Google Search today 2/27/2009 gave almost 800,000 pages. If that is not notable, I don't know what is. --AAAAA (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um... non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources is our definition of notable. So, 800,000 Ghits don't necessarily do it. Your !vote would be stronger if you address the definition, rather than a subjective notion of "notability". -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other Idol-related articles have the winner and its runners-up notable for Wikipedia. The only way for these finalists to have its own articles is when they have their own album, which would pass notability issues. 114.198.145.132 (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know I said my last comment was my last comment, but just by way of education, what this IP posted is objectively untrue. Far more than just "the winner and its runners up" have their own articles. H₂O Shipper 14:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established and there are clear precedents, per woohookitty. Dean B (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This should be closed now. Further discussion is pointless, and the other two have already been closed per WP:SNOW. H₂O Shipper 18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This type of nonsence is pointless.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[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.