Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Lorenzo

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. Editors are welcome to redirect or merge (as always), or to open a discussion on the article talk page with the intention of doing either. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Lorenzo[edit]

Ruth Lorenzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable artist. Only claim to fame is finishing 5th in the latest series of The X Factor. She is already covered here. Until she is signed, I don't see the need for her to have an independent article on Wikipedia. I'd be happy with either deletion or redirection with full page protection until notability can be established as a result here. John Sloan (view / chat) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is not my area of expertise, but articles exist for US singers with the same level of notability (ie. came fifth or lower in American Idol). The same notability guidelines should apply to both countries. I will only support the deletion if it is expanded to cover American Idol finalists as well. --GW… 18:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are articles on US American Idol finalists whose sole claim to notability is American Idol (i.e. little or no music career or media coverage afterwards), feel free to nominate them too. If this article doesn't survive the AfD, they won't either. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did, a year or two back, and if I recall correctly, all of the ones who were in the top twelve were kept. That is why I will only accept a dual UK-US nomination. --GW… 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • However, there has already been one AfD on another X Factor contestant from the same series which has gone to a redirect, so there will be inconsistency either way. I can see the case for a discussion on a consistent line with X factor etc. contestants, but we won't achieve it here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see where this could be coming from. But it's not Ruth's fault she came fifth. She has a great career ahead of her. Many people have already seen her at her gigs. She has an enormous fanbase all over the world so it's only fair that they know a good bit about her. She has had many record offers and is performing at a public awards ceremony so I think this page should stay. XF5000 18:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect - This is a clear case of WP:BLP1E, and there's not really that much worth keeping in this article that isn't in the other X Factor articles anyway. (I'm not sure about page protection though - that is generally only done in cases of persistent vandalism). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I suggest page protection is to stop the redirect from being repeatedly removed as has happend on a few Diana Vickers articles since her AfD closed as a redirect. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 18:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe this article should stay. We already know Ruth is going to get a career out of The X Factor, she is performing at an Awards ceremony in Belfast and she is also going on the X Factor Tour aswell. Keep the article it will save us a lot of time when she gets a recording contract! RL1000 18:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Please don't vote stack with socks XF5000! John Sloan (view / chat) 18:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case you don't already know: 1) WP:CRYSTAL is pretty clear that Wikipedia is not for articles for things that people think are going to be big but aren't yet (and, to be brutally honest, every X Factor contestant has a fanbase convinced that they are going to be massive, and half the time they sink without trace); 2) If she meets notability later, anyone can revert the redirect and start from where the article left off, so time will be wasted. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand where your coming from, but i don't have more than one account. Honestly what makes you think that. And as for the signature thing i didn't understand what was going on about it being unsigned. So i put mine and RL1000's names in bold. Sorry to SineBot who signed them. XF5000 19:15, 6 January 2009.

  • Redirect - until her career actually does take-off, then any actual success is just crystal balling. When her career does take off as some editor's have weighed in as being almost a cerrtainty, then there will be plenty of coverage in reliable sources to create the article. But until that time arrives, then the appropriate action is a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Too many of the keep arguments are based on crystalballing. Shoester (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me, placed means on the podium (First, Second or Third). Ruth was only fifth and fourth placed Diana Vickers' article was (IMO rightfully) redirected via this deletion discussion. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 01:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:ILIKEIT isn't a very strong argument for keeping an article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, I get your point. (Sorry) Do what you have feel is best. --Titanictaker (talk) 20:24, 10 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruth_Lorenzo&oldid=1138324942"