Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sarver (2nd nomination)

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. Discussion to redirect should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sarver (2nd nomination)[edit]

Since Alexis Grace's page was obliterated, it is necessary to discuss and reconsider deleting just about everyone. After all, there's barely any room for these people, right? --Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 16:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is as a result of the delete close at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexis_Grace_(2nd_nomination). Personally, I think a redirect would be a far better outcome of this process. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But still, what is the argument for deletion for this article, not a different article. It is Michael Sarver that is being discussed, not Alexis Grace. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator is basically referring to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Can an actually reason for deletion be given? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to American Idol (season 8). Whilst the nomination appears a little pointed, I think these should be discussed on the same grounds as the participants at Alexis Grace mentioned. A lack of notability beyond the single event (per WP:BLP1E) of being in American Idol. WikiProject precedents or standards are irrelevant in comparison to our own policies - we already have an article covering the event, so individual articles can be merged there if there is any additional material, in which case a redirect should take place. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without having too much knowledge of the article... "If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate." could probably be applied here, as I understand it American Idol is a rather large event over there, and the contestants have a rather large role within it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I seriously wish these had been nommed all together - save our copy-pasting! :) I don't think the event is significant - I interpret that to refer to something more important than a TV show. Say the assassin in a presidential assassin - you would expect an article on them, because it was a significant event - a TV show is unlikely to be significant in the same way. Your mileage may, of course, vary Fritzpoll (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the grand scheme of things, this TV show is a very significant TV show, not just to television, but to the music industry too. I agree that what I quoted is open to interpretation, but looking at things relatively, it seems to apply. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But the section you quoted clearly refers to historical significance. In full, it reads: If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented historic events, for example John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The historic significance of events should be indicated by the persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. Transient press coverage of a story does not generally indicate an individual who would meet this exception, even if there are multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. - there is no evidence of persistent coverage of these individuals, so they don't get articles...yet! If any of them get to number 1, or anything like that, then the articles should be recreated. But they aren't notable just for being in the TV show, which is essentially a temporary event, meaning that all coverage of them is transient until they do something else. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I read the last bit of that section as giving an example of the application of the guideline, rather than saying it only applies to historical significance. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm pretty certain it's to do with historical significance, because it meshes with WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SBST in terms of Wikipedia's desire to only record individuals who have historical significance. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        American Idol is historically significant!!!!!!!!!!!!--23prootie (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to series article. Per WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for one event. If the subject becomes notable outside of this event, they may warrant an article. In addition, I'm concerned about the article's poor level of sourcing per WP:BIO - for a biography of a living person the required standard of sourcing is set quite high. This content would be much more suitable in the series article already mentioned. Gazi moff 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, at least for now - Unlike some others, he has nothing else to warrant keeping the article. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect which is the common outcome for reality show contestants who did nothing outside the show they appeared in. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Apparently, you can delete articles without reason.--23prootie (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't state a reason why the article may beet our wider policies for inclusion. Please see WP:ILIKEIT. Gazi moff 07:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per 23prootie. Still performing. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - BLP1E. Contestants on Jeopardy appear for multiple episodes, too. This does not make them notable. There have been no reasons to keep based in policy. Subjects fails to meet notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the keep arguments above are basically stating past precedent, which doesn't override WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Unless he does something else notable in the future that changes his notability, no one will remember nor care about him next season. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes multiple criteria in WP:Music, most importantly #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." American Idol is one of the biggest music competitions.

Keep - There's no point in deleting the article when it is probably going to get recreated again. Keeping the article is more practical than having a messy undelete when he finally releases an album. And he is still in the show so a final conclusion on his notability is yet to be determined.--23prootie (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You can't state your argument repeatedly, although you can go back to your original comment above and bolster your argument with this if you wish. However, please note WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SCRABBLE - we don't create articles on the basis that someone may become ntoable at some stage in the future. The correct procedure is to wait until they become notable outside of the TV series, then create the article once notability outside WP:BLP1E is assured. Gazi moff 14:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do get your point, after all Allison Iraheta was not yet famous three years ago even though she won a reality show. But what I'm worried about is what happens next if this gets deleted. Remember that this was triggered only when Alexis Grace's article get deleted as some sort of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth thing. If this gets deleted then who knows who's next. I have a feeling that these discussions will be used in the future to delete every other contestant of American Idol up to the point of Kelly Clarkson ether by a crazy fan as payback or a hater of the show. So rather than waste our time by creating a HUGE MESS, I suggest that this article be kept, along with the other contestants this season until perhaps when the season is over.--23prootie (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Obviously notable. No response to my comment needed. Gage (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE for more information on why this is unsuitable for deletion discussions. Many thanks, Gazi moff 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need. Gage (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggeted that the articles be kept until a guideline is established on how to deal with these articles but the debate should happen in between seasons. Deleting them now would only inflame the situation and we'll have to deal wuth crazy fans annoyed that their favorite got deleted (Note: See User:Fritzpoll). For now the articles should stay. Please bear with that.--23prootie (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes criteria #1 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, thereby passing WP:BIO. Aspects (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note at the bottom of WP:MUSICBIO, I'd argue that the sbject isn't notable outside of the contest they're taking part in, and that a redirect may be appropriate. Gazi moff 21:59, 16 March 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.