Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frankie Grande

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Grande[edit]

Frankie Grande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I really do not want to delete this article and I know that Frankie's sister is famous, but it does just not meet WP:GNG yet. We have to wait until he wins Big Brother or does other notable things in the future. Most of the references are to unofficial press releases and blogs. What does everyone think? ~~JHUbal27 20:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to redirect- As the original nominator, I agree with Bearcat because his reasoning is coherent, thorough and accurate, especially the fact that Frankie does not inherit notability due to his sister being famous or by participating in a reality TV show. I would like to point out that the original creator has a conflict of interest and also there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~JHUbal27 00:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I do not have any conflict of interest. I do not know Frankie Grande or Ariana Grande or any member of their families and have no business contacts with any of them. What made you think I did? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I cited the wrong policy. I just thought because you created the original redirect and once I redirected it again, you decided to start the article. I did do some major cleanup, but we'll have to see the result of this discussion before we go any further. ~~JHUbal27 05:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Grande has produced three Broadway shows with notable casts and also has produced Off-Broadway and other productions. He has performed on Broadway and in other theatre productions and has appeared in his own one-man show Off-Broadway, and in cabaret acts in New York City. He also founded a non-profit arts organization that helps youths in South Africa and has a significant social media presence. He would be notable even if he were not appearing on Big Brother and if his sister were not Ariana Grande. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a well-written article, fully referenced and clearly demonstrating the notability of the subject. Jack1956 (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too much of the referencing here is to primary sources, unreliable blogs and cursory mentions in blurbs that fail to comprise substantial coverage, with the few references that are sufficiently reliable not supporting any claims that would actually get him past WP:CREATIVE on their own. This article, in other words, exists solely because he's currently a competitor on a television reality show — but we have a longstanding consensus that people do not qualify for articles just for being competitors on television reality shows. Rather, reality show competitors qualify for standalone articles only in one of three cases: (a) you can demonstrate that they already qualified for an article before they were on the reality show — which, as I've noted, has not been adequately demonstrated here, since none of his prior activities were sufficient to get him into Wikipedia by themselves; (b) they win it; or (c) even if they don't win, they still manage to parlay the exposure they gained from the show into passing a notability guideline for their followup endeavours (e.g. numerous non-winning competitors on American Idol have since gone on to become successful and notable musicians or actors anyway.) The mere fact of being on the show does not, however, make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article by itself — and a person does not inherit notability just because he has a famous sister, either. Revert to redirect; no prejudice against recreation in the future if he passes conditions (b) or (c) after the show ends. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable actor, Passes GNG .–Davey2010 • (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the article as written is relying primarily on unreliable and insubstantial sources that don't support any WP:CREATIVE-satisfying claims of notability (which are not the same thing as claims of existence), would you mind elaborating on how he actually "passes" GNG? Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To put it bluntly - No, With all respect I've got far better things to do than to sit here and argue over my reason. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To put it just as bluntly, simply asserting that a person passes GNG "because I say so" does not, in and of itself, constitute proof that they pass GNG — especially when refusing to elaborate on that assertion is a response to someone who has presented considerable evidence (the article's overreliance on primary and insubstantial-blurb sourcing, etc.) that the topic does not pass GNG as readily as you've claimed. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010 has a history of weak AfD votes, e.g. Aimee-Lynn Chadwick. One cannot just show up to a deletion discussion and just say "It's just notable!" without explaining why. This "keep" entry will be dismissed. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bollox do I - So far I've only made 2 !votes without explaining why - That doesn't mean "I have a history of weak AfD votes" atall, It's happened so many times where someone is simply unhappy with why I !vote keep and at times one really cannot be arsed to have an arguement over it, Anyones comment here can be dismissed and that's entirely up to the closing admin. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I see no reason for this deletion. The subject is notable in itself and should therefore remain. In time I'm sure it will improve, but for gods sake, let's give it a chance! Cassiantotalk 08:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE, this isn't a valid article to make in a deletion disucssion. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, your above post does not make sense. I wasn't aware we were making articles in deletion discussions? Cassiantotalk 15:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is absolutely no reason why this article should be deleted. This article describes Frankie's life and career very well. Please don't delete this article!! Paul Badillo (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSNOTABLE, this isn't a valid article to make in a deletion disucssion. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Big Brother 16 HouseGuests (U.S.) for now. First off, I a a huge BB fan, and think/hope Frankie will win this year which will render this AfD discussion moot. For now though, his notability just isn't sufficient. The playbill.com sources are mostly brief name-drops, but overall they are just press releases, as is the broadwayworld.com source. The US Weekly source is somewhat better, but the only reason it exists is to report Frankie's BB house entry within the context of "It's Ariana Grande's brother!"; unfortunately notability is not inherited in the Wikipedia. Unless solid sources that pass WP:RS are found that are independent of his sister and are not press releases. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, Grande is notable *aside* from his sister Ariana Grande, even if he were not appearing on Big Brother. This is a well-sourced article, except for the bloated section about Big Brother that was added last night by the person who nominated this article for deletion with 24 references. Playbill and Playbill Vault are high quality sources. Most of the other information in this article is sourced to standard magazine and newspaper sources. BroadwayWorld is an acceptable source, and nothing that is sourced to it, or to any other primary source is controversial. No one has disputed that any of the information here is true. See WP:SELFPUB. Among his other achievements, Grande produced three Broadway shows with notable casts and various other productions; he has acted on Broadway, in US National tours and in Off-Broadway and regional theatre; he has performed in cabaret and in his own one-man show in NYC; he founded a charitable organization that helps disadvantaged youth in South Africa and established a school for another charitable organization; he has a substantial internet following on YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and Facebook; and he has received extensive coverage in national and international press. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2014 (amended 29 July)
  • Playbill and broadwayworld are just press releases, which do not satisfy the WP:GNG, as PR is not sufficiently independent from the subject. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think the Playbill materials cited here are "press releases", I suggest you clean your spectacles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think they aren't, I suggest your Frankie FanClub card may be a bit over-sized and blocking your vision, as well. Tarc (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong again. I am not a Frankie Grande fan. I have never met him, seen him in person or corresponded with him, and I do not subscribe to or follow any of his social media. Nor am I a particular fan of Ariana Grande, although I think she is a talented singer. But I do know what a producer of a Broadway show is, which you apparently do not. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you stop arguing about stupid things, and letting your interest in Frankie Grande get in the way of your thought process. Just stop denying it already! You cannot be right all the time and you cannot just remove cleanup tags because you said so- you have to legitimately fix the issue and provide better references. If you cannot find good references, then there is no point of going through the trouble to create an article for him. You have no proof that he is notable except that he is on Big Brother and is Ariana Grande's brother. I like Frankie as a person too, but he already has his own little article on Ariana Grande Wikia. He is not yet ready for the big boy version of Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but that is how we do things around here. ~~JHUbal27 08:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • [moving left]. You are calling me a liar. That's not very nice, and demonstrates both arrogance and ignorance, since you obviously don't know anything about me. FYI, over the past 8 years, I have created hundreds of articles for Wikipedia, quite a few of which have been promoted to WP:GA and WP:FA class. I have contributed to thousands of other articles here, including on science, literature and history. I have served as online ambassador for several college classes participating in Wikipedia's Education program. How many Featured Articles have you written for Wikipedia? Your work on the Frankie Grande article reveals that you need to work on your referencing skills, as you often leave out important information, such as author names, publisher information and dates. You should also read WP:V, to understand what information should be referenced on Wikipedia, as you do not seem to understand it. Also see WP:SELFPUB, which is relevant to the Frankie Grande article and states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ... so long as: (1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; (2) it does not involve claims about third parties; (3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; (4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; (5) the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." You may disagree with me about this article, which is, in my opinion, well-referenced, but that does not justify your calling me a liar. Please be WP:CIVIL. I think you owe me an apology, but I will be surprised if you demonstrate that level of class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed his social media followers because it is promotional and does not contribute anything helpful to the article. And quite frankly, we have 3 weak keep !votes by editors with no valid argument, 1 keep !vote by the original creator who keeps making the same argument (obviously), 1 keep !vote that is possibly valid but is still incomplete and biased, and 3 redirect !votes by two experienced editors (including myself) and one by an administrator. Let's see the end result of the debate so that I know I was right in nominating this article to redirect to List of Big Brother 16 HouseGuests (U.S.)#Frankie. ~~JHUbal27 20:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, all this is just your own POV. And to describe yourself as a more experienced editor over editors such as Ssilvers, Cassianto and even myself is actually quite laughable. All the points above to keep the article are totally valid; you not agreeing with them does not make them invalid. The article is, in MHO, well written, clearly and accurately referenced and demonstrates the subject's notability. Jack1956 (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I have read the foregoing exchanges with perplexity. The content of the article makes it self-evident that the subject is notable. Nonetheless, just to check, I have looked in the British Library's press archives, and I see that Mr Grande has been mentioned in detail in the British press in recent months. If his notability has spread from the US to the UK I think it would be foolish for anyone to go on maintaining that he is not notable. I don't, for my own part, find him very interesting but that is purely a matter of personal opinion: he manifestly meets the WP standard of notability. The UK press reports could be used for citations, if wanted, though it seems to me that those already used are clearly WP:RS. I suggest this notion of deletion should be kicked into touch forthwith. – Tim riley talk 07:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What links do you have to prove that he was mentioned by the British Press and in what context? That is not a very reliable source either considering it is still press releases. Please, I am begging the closing admin to give due weight to each !vote, but especially pay close attention to the users who had quite valid explanations to revert back to the redirect. At most, we have two good keep votes and two good redirect votes (I am purposely not including myself or the original creator). The other keep votes do not have enough detail to be considered because they fail arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. They haven't not proved the notability of this article. At the end of the day, it is not my decision, but I strongly suggest that this article be redirected straightaway back to this article right here. ~~JHUbal27 08:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timriley did not say press releases, he said they were in the press archives of the British Library, which is the national library for the United Kingdom. I think that when you start begging admins to take note of your argument over that of those who do not agree with you then you are getting a little too involved and are taking it a bit too personally. The right decision will be made, whichever way it goes. Part of what working on here is all about is just accepting that and moving on. Jack1956 (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the article already cites to a national British newspaper. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Playbill – If I correctly read the foregoing submissions, there is a misapprehension about Playbill references. Playbill, with which we are familiar in its British version over here in the UK, is a respected source and provides reliable information such as will also be found in Who's Who in the Theatre. Naturally, the editors obtain factual information from their subjects – it would be very remiss if they neglected to do so – but the finished articles are widely – indeed, as far as I know, universally – regarded as authoritative. In this case, the information is also verified by the IBDb and numerous other listings in theatre journals. Hope this clears up the misunderstanding on the part of our well-meaning young contributors. Tim riley talk 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yet another one of these AFDs that confuses "fame" with being notable for Wikipedia and a stand alone article. This subject meets our standards.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mark Miller sums it up quite well. The subject more than meets our notability requirements away from BB. I can only echo Jack1956's assessment that the article is well written and properly sourced. MarnetteD|Talk 23:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is anyone disputing "Make room for the new kings of Broadway, former Boca Raton school chums Philip Morgaman, 27, Frankie Grande, 28, and Brian Kapetanis, 28. They are the producers of the critically acclaimed new revival of the classic 1946 political comedy, “Born Yesterday,” recipient of two Tony Award nominations." [1]? The sources are fine for GNG, even after discounting Big Brother. Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject and the content of the article easily meets GNG. The article is properly sourced and verifiable, is NPOV and is well written.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is pretty clear now that the consensus is to keep. I think this discussion should be closed in favour of "keep" so as we can all get back to editing the encyclopedia. Cassiantotalk 20:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Cassianto. Can we have a decision one way or the other asap please as I would like to get back to working on the encyclopaedia rather than reverting the edits and tags of one disruptive editor. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frankie has had a lot of notability because of his work on Broadway, YouTube recognition, being Ariana Grande's half brother and as well as his current appearance on Big Brother. The subject is notable in itself and should remain. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has been covered enough in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. STATic message me! 16:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has been in a lot of work such as broadway, youtube, being a sibling to Ariana Grande, and on the current season of Big Brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.147.10 (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frankie_Grande&oldid=1137858638"