Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Idol (season 11) finalists

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Renominate individually. A number of the articles have changed whilst the discussion was in progress and some at least (per User:Paul Erik) appear to have been sourced properly. However there appears to be a huge problem in this area that a number of users are under the impression that appearing in the final of American Idol automatically makes somebody notable. Those people - and there are a lot on this AfD - need to go away and read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO. Wikiprojects do not get to invent their own notability guidelines - all articles must individually conform to Wikipedia policies. Merging and redirecting after that are editorial issues, not ones for AfD. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol (season 11) finalists

edit

American Idol (season 11) finalists – (View log)

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

See below for the rationale.

  1. Deandre Brackensick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  2. Hollie Cavanagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  3. Colton Dixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  4. Heejun Han (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  5. Jermaine Jones (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  6. Skylar Laine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  7. Joshua Ledet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  8. Shannon Magrane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  9. Phillip Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  10. Jeremy Rosado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  11. Jessica Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  12. Elise Testone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  13. Erika Van Pelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion

edit

Once again, we've managed to attract our annual glut of unreferenced and/or poorly referenced WP:BLP1E articles about each and every one of the Top 13 contestants on the currently running cycle of American Idol. As usual, WP:NMUSIC states that a person is not notable unless and until they win a major music competition. And as usual, that means the mere fact of competing on a reality show does not, in and of itself, entitle anyone to an article except the winner — anybody else has to go on to earn notability the same way as any other musician who didn't win a televised reality show, namely by actually getting themselves signed to a label and releasing an album and attracting press coverage in reliable sources after the show's run ends. Delete all, without prejudice against future recreation if and when some of these people actually accomplish something notable. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan work 06:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in American Idol, all the finalists are considered placed Not for Wikipedia purposes, they aren't (and never have been.) Articles on here must follow WP:BLP policies, including (a) the use of reliable sourcing that demonstrates genuine notability, and (b) that notability has to be for more than just one single event beyond which the person becomes a non-notable private citizen again. If any contestant goes on to be a successful musician after their time on American Idol, then obviously they can have an article on those grounds — but Wikipedia has never allowed people to have and keep articles just because they landed in the Top 13, if they didn't go on to accomplish something notable afterward. At any rate, right now most of these articles are either wholly unsourced, or sourced only to a single blog post which lists their names (failing Wikipedia's requirements about substantial coverage in reliable sources). And for a variety of reasons, including the fact that haters and vandals frequently try to insert unsourced criticism or gossip into Wikipedia articles, we have to be extremely strict about insisting on quality sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an American Idol fansite. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) I see that you didn't contest my point about your error regarding WP:NMUSIC, and I would take it as your tacit acceptance that a major part of your rationale for deletion is based on faulty reasoning and I hope you will withdraw that.
2) Once we accept that the the basis for creation of these page is based on them being placed, then we can discuss what is meant by "placed" in American Idol. All the finalists are "placed", their elimination gives them a define position. However, if you want something more than just having a placing in the competition, then we can use a criteria that they are rewarded for achieving a particular placing. In American Idol, those who reached the Top 10/11 will join a tour in which they may be richly rewarded (over US $100,000 for each participant in many years). Moreover the Idol tour is one of the biggest tours of the year, for example the Season 5 tour was ranked #13 for the year by Billboard, in which case the contestants would have also qualified under #4 of WP:MUSICBIO because it is a well-covered tour in the media. That also means they are no longer known for a single event, and WP:BLP1E no longer applies to them. If you choose this stricter criterion of reaching Top 10/11, then your rationale for deletion would only be valid for 2 weeks, hardly a good reason for deleting.
3) Your assertion that "Wikipedia has never allowed people to have and keep articles just because they landed in the Top 13" is clearly wrong, just a simple look at the contestant pages of a few past seasons can tell you that.
4) The finalists are sometimes known for other events prior to Idol, for example, Jessica Sanchez this is year was known for her participation in American's Got Talent. Wholesale deletion is completely unjustified in this case.
5) What haters or vandals choose to do is irrelevant to this discussion, otherwise you might as well propose deleting the entire wikipedia. In my experience, by this point, all the contestants would have good coverage in reliable sources that concentrate on the contestant as an individual, so that is not a problem. At the moment many of the pages are just stubs because they were created less than a week ago, being just a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, far too early to complain about their content or sources cited in them. Hzh (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an individual show uses an alternative definition of a standard English word is irrelevant — in standard English, "placed" means, and has always meaned, to finish second (and only second) — and having been involved in the discussions, I can certainly assure you that WP:NMUSIC intended the standard definition of the word, not any revisionist definition that would allow an explosion of unreferenced stubs about over a dozen competitors per contest. And at any rate, familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — as well as the part of WP:NMUSIC which explicitly states that the definitive factor is not "whether person meets criteria X", but the presence in the article, right now, with no "somebody will get to it someday" demurrals, of reliable sources. A person can meet all of the music notability criteria and still not qualify for an article on Wikipedia if they've done it without garnering coverage in reliable sources — and a person can qualify for an article while technically meeting none of those criteria if they've garnered reliable source coverage. The definitive factor is the volume and quality of sources available about the person, not whether you can check specific accomplishments off of a checklist. And incidentally, a post-Idol concert tour billed as American Idol Finalists on Tour does not qualify as a separate event from the show — it's a part of the same event. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) I'm quite familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the purpose of my pointing out the existence of contestants pages based solely on their being placed was to point out the falsehood of your statement that "Wikipedia has never allowed people to have and keep articles just because they landed in the Top 13". That was not the first time you have made demonstrably false statement. It would help the discussion considerably if you had spent some time checking the veracity of your statements so that other people won't waste time discussing something patently false.
What individual Wikipedia editors try to do and what Wikipedia allows on the basis of policy can be, and often are, two very different things. There's certainly a neverending effort to write articles on every single person who gets onto any reality show at all (seriously, we have even seen attempts to write articles about people who only appeared on the show in one of those "backstage peeks at contestants who didn't make the cut" clips) — but Wikipedia's formal rules has always dictated that a person is not notable just for being on a reality show, but must either win it, or go on to achieve sustained notability despite their loss on the show itself. If that message doesn't always get through to individual editors, that's not my problem. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are going on about. I was simply asking you to make sure that what you wrote is accurate, so that we don't end up wasting time talking about things that has no relevance to the discussion. Now you are writing a load of irrelevant stuff about editors, and then go on to make further assertions that I have already shown to be false - it is not just winning, it is about being placed as well. You again repeated what you said before below, insisting the being "placed" means only coming in second, completely ignoring the evidence I have presented (including a link to a dictionary), then simply keep misstating what WP:NMUSIC says, and proceeded to make a ridiculous claim about American Idol doesn't finish until its tour finishes. (Why don't you include the winner's album release? Presumably that's part of your "complete run"?)
I fear we are conducting a conversation where you don't make any effort to understand what has been said, or try to make sure that what you wrote is accurate, or try to evaluate evidence presented, or even to understand the stated rules of wikipaedia. You are just repeating the same thing over and over again hoping that something will stick. Since this is not a discussion by my understanding, I will not contribute any further to this. Hzh (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. What I'm saying is not inaccurate or irrelevant. Rather, given that I was heavily involved in drafting WP:NMUSIC in the first place and that I've been around Wikipedia more than long enough to know exactly where the consensus is for contestants on reality shows when they come to AFD, I'm quite intimately familiar with what was intended. If you read our article on parimutuel betting, specifically the section on "Parimutuel bet types", you'll see the verb "place" used in exactly the "win, place or show = 1, 2 or 3" way I described — and the fact that you can find another source which uses the word in a different way doesn't change the policy's intent.
At any rate, the winner's album release certainly is part of the same process, but that misses the point: they won, so they pass our notability guidelines and it no longer matters how many distinct events you do or don't divide the process into. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to comment any further, but your admission that you were involved in drafting WP:NMUSIC must be one of the most amazing thing I've heard. That you have mis-stated (twice, even after I corrected you) that only the winner is notable even when the WP:NMUSIC clearly stated those "placed" are as well, that you haven't demonstrated something that's apparently "explicitly" stated according to you, that you dismissed what most reasonable people would accept as the most authoritative dictionary in the English speaking world as just "another source", while attempting to use terms in horse-betting to justify the term's interpretation in a singing competition, my gast is well and truly flabbered. I have really nothing more to add. Hzh (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm explaining the way the term was used in the drafting of the policy, and the way the term has been applied whenever similar cases have come to AFD; it has nothing to do with my opinion, and whether or not that conflicts with other definitions of the word or not. Whether you agree with it or not, the existing policy and precedent are what they are. I at no point in this discussion misrepresented it at all; I'm merely explaining the state of Wikipedia policy and practice as it has actually been determined by a lot of people besides me. While the wording of WP:NMUSIC can certainly be changed to clarify better what was intended, that intention came from a long discussion involving a lot of people over an extended period of time. If you don't agree with it, then that's not my problem and neither is how flabbered your gast is or isn't. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2) If we want discuss the meaning of English terms, then the use of a dictionary is necessary. According to online dictionary provided by Oxford English Dictionary, you can find the following definitions of "placed":
— (be placed) British achieve a specified position in a race: he was placed eleventh in the long individual race
— [no object] be among the first three or four in a race (or the first three in the US): he won three times and placed three times
I think that is sufficient refutation of your assertion about English usage. Both British and American usage clearly allow "placed" to be more than second place, and British usage permits fourth or more. What Wikipedia means exactly is something for wiki itself to sort out, but as far as the show is concern, although it is an American show, the original was a British show, and the show follows British format and rules, and British usage would be applicable in this case. As far as the show is concerned, being placed means reaching to the finals because from then on the contestants were designated a position depending on the time of their elimination.
In a contest, there are three "positions" one can attain: "win" (i.e. come first), "place" (i.e. come second, and only second) or "show" (i.e. come third). That is the definition that was intended by WP:NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, to 'place' in a sporting event only means second place in reference to a horse race. In all other sporting events, 'placing' means to finish within the top three competitors in a race. American Idol is hardly a sport.
3) If you want to invoke WP:NMUSIC, please do so accurately, nowhere does it says that the "definitive factor is the volume and quality of sources available about the person". That may nor may not be in the mind of the editor deciding whether the pages should be kept or not, but it is not for you to assert something being explicitly stated when it is not. All the articles on the contestants now have reliable sources, and nearly all the pages now have reliable sources that concentrate specifically on that contestants.
WP:NMUSIC most certainly does explicitly say that the volume and quality of sources is more important than the mere meeting of a criterion on a checklist — and even if it didn't, other binding Wikipedia policies, such as verifiability and reliable sources, would still override any claim that sourcing didn't matter. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4) It is not for you to simply assert that the American Idol tour is not a separate event. It is a separate event, one is a concert tour, another is a TV show. It is just as different as the albums released by the winner or placed contestants even though the albums came about as the recording contract won as a result of them being on the show (for the winner, that is the prize, just as being on the tour is the prize for getting to the Top 10/11). It is as different as a concert tour by an artist or band to support their album - no one would claim that the album release and the tour are the the same event. Hzh (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The complete run of a person's involvement with American Idol, from the first audition to the end of the followup tour, is a single event — because no matter which phase of the process a person happens to be actively participating in at any given time, it's still "being on American Idol". Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Hzh. When they mean placed, it may mean "highly placed." It has always been said when it comes to American Idol contestants, only finalists would have their own Wikipedia articles and that only semifinalists have to go on to earn notability the same way as any American Idol contestant who did not advance to the finals on the show. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia applies policies and notability rules on the basis of what they do mean, not on the basis of what an individual editor thinks they might be interpretable to mean. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that you say that, considering the entire discussion you have been asserting what you interpret the rules to be, such as your interpretation to the meaning of "placed"
Wikipedia deletion policy has always allowed for a group of related articles which have the same content problems to be considered as a group rather than as 13 separate individual discussions; if you can make a credible case that one or more of the 13 already have more properly sourced notability than others do, it is possible to vote "keep this one, delete that one". Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specific to Jessica Sanchez I've (1) added a reliable source for America's Got Talent, (2) left the We Are the World-YouTube Edition "WATW-YE" Remake (already adequate sourcing, here and within the WATW-YE article), and (3) added a recent CNN video concerning AmIdol standout performance. Even if other articles are deleted (not sure exactly where your description of "Wikipedia deletion policy" comes from), Jessica Sanchez appears notable as supported by reliable sources. RCraig09 (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects - All should be redirected to the main season 11 page until proven notability. None of these has had any notable career prior to auditioning to the show werldwayd (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Werldwayd, and in the future, un-redirect the winner and anyone who goes on to become notable. At the moment, all of them fail WP:ONEEVENT. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do not redirect Jessica Sanchez, as she got an independent career and appeared on another reality television show prior to American Idol. Her wildcard appearance on America's Got Talent has been viewed over 5 million times on YouTube. The runner-up is guaranteed to go on to become notable. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Edit conflict) Revise per your comment: redirect all but Sanchez until end of season. At that point, un-redirect winner, runner-up, and any others who go on to become sufficiently notable. Although I'm not sure about Sanchez - is her AGT performance good enough to meet this? Do multiple semi-notable-status-actions confer notability? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is all about the verifiability, i.e. the presence or absence of reliable sources that demonstrate her notability, such as newspaper or magazine coverage about her. It doesn't matter if a YouTube video was viewed 100 billion times; its creator or performer is still not notable if those views didn't translate into a reasonable number of actual pieces about her in real media (i.e. the kind with editorial standards.) At this point, Sanchez's article is sourced almost exclusively to blogs and other unreliable media; the few sources that actually do pass muster under WP:RS don't add up to enough significant and sustained coverage to justify an article. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:NMUSIC and as stated by Hzh and Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando.--Arielle Leira (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Hzh, et.al. Also (and I'm new to this so not sure), does placing in the Top XX on the iTunes chart count per anything on WP:NMUSIC? But if Keeping is not possible, there should be no worse than a redirect to American Idol (season 11), as these people are current, and being as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, when someone wants to find out who a person is, they should at least be redirected to the appropriate article. These singers have their songs placed on iTunes as well as videos on YouTube, so there is a reason that someone might search for them. Some of the singers have IMDb pages, e.g. Colton Dixon, although I don't know if that matters for purposes of this discussion. Also, as per Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando, Jessica Sanchez has had several notable instances in her life, so should be kept irregardless of what happens with the others. Scifibookguy (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It depends on whether they recorded it as themselves or as the American Idol cast - at this point, it's pretty much as the cast. In that case, they're treated for that purpose as members of a very odd band, and band members don't inherit their band's notability. The names should be listed on the Idol season 11 page, of course, but the individuals aren't notable for something they did as part of the show until a winner and runner up are determined. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is informatve after all, and that is what Wikipedia is about, providing information about anything people have an interest in. So, keep them please Vaxent (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes and no. Wikipedia is about providing reliable, verifiable information about notable things. No one is asserting that American Idol is not notable. But the individual finalists are not (yet) notable to merit their own article: informing people about them can and should be done on the American Idol (season 11) page. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think they are notable. The show has a huge number of viewers, a big fan base and devoted followers, which make contestants interesting to a considerable percentage of the population. I agree that American Idol should provide information, but I also beleive Wikipedia should do this job too. One reason is that American Idol would be selective and biased in information they provide, as they want to be appealing. Wikipedia tries to put everything at hand together, without being a fan or an enemy.Vaxent (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia's job is to provide content on encyclopedic topics, not just ones that might be "interesting". There is a difference: would you realistically expect the Encyclopedia Brittannica to contain articles on every single individual contestant on a game show? Knowing the difference between "temporary blip" notability and the sustained encyclopedic kind is a pretty basic encyclopedia-building skill, just for the record. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I beleive Wikipedia is now much bigger than just an encyclopeida like Brittannica. It does not follow the rules of those. They have their own limitations, like space, paid authors and etc. If it is possible to put information about every living and dead person on Wikipedia, I'd love it. The good thing is that the information is here, if somebody needs it. 100 years from now, if somebody is doing a piece on American Idol, everything is here. And that is an encyclopedia, and a hell of good one, which likes of Brittannica cannot be, ever.Vaxent (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or redirect. Not notable yet, and the few info we got about them can be merged into the American Idol page. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 18:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Similar show The X Factor typically will have a page every season for information on the group of contestants in that specific year. See for example: List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8). Perhaps something like this would be appropriate for Idol too. Contestants who then go onto have multiple merits in the future can have their own pages. Contestants on The X Factor UK typically don't get an article until they win, or when they do something after the show.. Regardless of what happens though, I personally think Jessica Sanchez is a different case to the other contestants, and has already acheived ample notoriety to keep her article. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
How so? Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all All of these articles now are reliably sourced by references that have significant coverage that are independent of the contestants, thereby passing both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO#1. Also being a finalist on American Idol passes WP:MUSICBIO#9.
Six of the articles (Deandre Brackensick, Colton Dixon, Heejun Han, Jessica Sanchez, Elise Testone and Erika Van Pelt), passed this threshold prior to the AfD and should not have been nominated as being "unreferenced and/or poorly referenced". The articles were all mass-redirected to American Idol (season 11) within six minutes of each other, then when those edits were reverted by me, the articles were all mass-tagged for deletion within eleven minutes of each other. Therefore, I do think WP:BEFORE was followed since reasonable steps were taken to find reliable sources that could have improved the articles, because I have found them for the remaining seven articles.
I am also disappointed that the article creators, significant editors to the articles and the Idol WikiProject were not notified of the AfD, and I am going to go do that now to hopefully increase both participation in the AfD and reliably sourced information in the articles. Aspects (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Placing first or second in the final show on American Idol meets WP:MUSICBIO #9. Placing in the Top 13 does not. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as in the past ten seasons, it has been decided before that being placed in the finals will get their own Wikipedia articles. Wikiproject Idol states, "For contestants, it has been decided that only finalists should qualify for their own article based on their participation in the show." There will have to be enough information from reliable sources in order to make a Wikipedia article. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which differs from what I said how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Wikiproject Idol states, "For contestants, it has been decided that only finalists should qualify for their own article based on their participation in the show." Only semifinalists would be the redirects. Only very few finalists in the past ten seasons are redirects. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, which differs from what I said how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In American Idol terminology, Top 12 (or in this case Top 13) is the finals. therefore they are all finalists, not just the winner or runner-up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkitekted (talk • contribs) 06:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC) — Arkitekted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Most contestants who made the top 12 or 13 on American Idol have later become notable for other events after their time on the show. The official American Idol website is known to keep track of American Idol alumni. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then the appropriate time to write about them is when those other events after their time on the show have made them notable. This is as much about protecting them as anything else — as any Wikipedia administrator can tell you, it's already a full time job keeping our articles clean of unsourced or poorly sourced assertions about genuinely notable article subjects getting bad Brazilian waxes, or having kinky sex with some guy's unnamed second cousin's barber, or masterminding the Kennedy assassination. The last thing we need, as a rule, is for articles about people who are briefly "notable", but then go back into obscurity and get their real estate license instead, to slip through the cracks and become privacy-invading targets of vandalism because nobody's bothering to watch them anymore — which is why we don't write articles on the basis of a prospect to maybe become permanently notable, but only when permanent, enduring notability has already been attained. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The season 11 finalists do not yet have enough information from reliable sources, and it is too early to decide the fate of these articles. The American Idol finalists are kept on record in the official Website. Very few finalists have faded into obscurity. The articles were started too early without little or no information from reliable sources. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articles were started too early without little or no information from reliable sources. Which is exactly what I said from the beginning. You know, for someone who's supposedly arguing that the articles should be kept, some of your rationales sound an awful lot more like you agree with me than you do with the keep side. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been transferring a lot of information from the articles into the main American Idol season 11 article. The articles were started immediately after the top 13 was revealed, which is something I would not do. I would wait until the middle rounds of the competition before deciding to start the Wikipedia articles. I am leaning toward the keep side though. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all It clearly states here --> Wikipedia:NMUSIC, that a musician is notable if the performer has won or PLACED in a major music competition. American Idol is of course a major competitions. They may not be ordered yet, but just being in the top 13 can make them a notable individual. The articles has a proper stub. The articles were even proposed for speedy deletion, but was cancelled because all of them are already notable, and the reason why the tag was deleted because "Removed speedy deletion tag since being a finalist indicates the importance or signficance of the singer!" Need a proof? See the revision history of each articles. Igetitcrackinlikebagbag (talk) (UTC)
  • Don't delete too soon American Idol is still running, maybe there are so many surprise like Jessica Sanchez which Reid said She is the best I ever heard for a whole competitions.Gsarwa (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per c. 20 million viewers a week and at length discussions on each contestant in newspapers and magazines on local and national levels in addition to all the internet coverage. Finalists in the TV show with a superpower's highest ratings are notable to tens of millions of people... --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:SNOW. These are bundled together, but they vary in notability and so the contestants are not really all in the same boat as each other. Plus, even some of the deletes acknowledge that at least three of these will unquestionably be kept in a month or two anyway, so no real sense getting rid of them now. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Temporary for Bonaparte has been blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (diff).[reply]
  • Keep for Jessica Sanchez, subject is independently notable, even beyond American Idol (season 11) per WP:BIO. Merge & Redirect the rest of the other AfD Candidates as suggested to American Idol (season 11) unless the individual subject can be proved to be independently notable per WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to American Idol (season 11) page except for Jessica Sanchez, she has been notable since her stint in America's Got Talent. ApprenticeFan work 04:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to American Idol (season 11) I definately think none of these contestants are notable enough to have their own page—however Jessica Sanchez's page should remain, as she is more notable then the rest of them (not only for her performance but her previous work). −Arrekea♥(Talk) 07:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I'm not sure how many people noticed, but while this discussion has been going on, User:Aspects has worked hard to add sources to the articles that were missing them. Take Deandre Brackensick for example. There are articles about him in KTVU, Contra Costa Times, and USA Today. Note that these are not articles about American Idol that mention him in passing; they are articles about Brackensick, even if they discuss him mostly around his AI appearance. To evaluate the sources neutrally, we don't dismiss the coverage based on the way he achieved his notability ("he's only a contestant on a talent show.") It's a "keep" not because of WP:MUSICBIO criterion #9, but because the subjects meet the general notability guideline, or WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. (Also it should be noted that WP:BLP1E talks about protecting "low-profile" individuals. You're not low-profile if you appear on American Idol.) The precedents are clear: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Murray (2nd nomination), for example. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all per WP:NMUSIC. "Place" means ANY place; all of them will be ranked between first and 13th place in the show. Except for a few early seasons, virtually every past AI finalist has a Wikipedia article; season 11 should be no exception. --RBBrittain (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:NMUSIC. Notability is already established by being in top 12. At most, one or two finalists from earlier seasons do not have WP articles at this point. With there being active work done on the articles, deletion is unwarranted. Also, bungling all these articles together to be voted on as one feels a bit wrong; they should be assessed by themselves if deletion is still being pushed for - but asserting in general that AI finalist entries do not automatically classify for deletion because of WP:BLP1E is a good thing. Kenneaal (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object to the SPA tag above. My contributions are primarily on NO Wikipedia, but I have still made contributions here as well. I feel the tagging fails Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account#General_test, and would encourage others to review my contributions both here and on NO Wikipedia (same username) before making any decisions on my input having less weight. Kenneaal (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an objective non-voter, I agree you aren't an SPA and removed the tag that someone else put up. Looking at no.wikipedia.org confirms what you are saying. Since it wasn't obvious (they wouldn't be expected to know that you contribute there) I'm hoping everyone will just assume it was a good faith mistake, no harm, no foul, and move on with the AFD discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the controversy concerning the disqualified contestant has attracted news coverage. --172.130.252.250 (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC) — 172.130.252.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • kEEP TOP 10 i CAN'T BELIEVE THIS SAME DISCUSSION HAS TO BE HELD EVERY YEAR. THE TOP TEN ARE DOING THE TOUR, JUST LIKE EVERY YEAR. (I removed the very bitey tag of SPA) Now that I have more time, It is standard for all the American Idol seasons to have top ten individual articles. Between the shows themselves which do dig into details about each contestant, their hometown media, including news television, which will give more than passing coverage and national media each one of these people's careers and lives is extensively covered. That they are pop figures is exactly the point, they are covered, and not just in a passing way, by popular forms of media. There are national shows that will feature each exiting contestant as part of a weekly cycle. Most will make appearances on national shows and all will be touring nationwide. There is more than enough for any one of these articles and now people should be encouraged to add useful information and sources to make each article be better.67.164.98.96 (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency's sake. I know each of these finalist warblers gets enough press coverage that you can make a good WP:GNG argument on any of them, some better than others. But I looked at Season 9 and 10 and it seems every finalist has their own article there as well. If we want to have a totally different organizational scheme, I don't care, but let's keep it consistent. These articles are highly trafficked, and we look like amateurs when they are always put up for deletion.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have said, each one of these people have had significant press coverage. At the very least, most finalists on American Idol would become the most notable person from their respective hometowns, which in and of itself would make them eligible for an article. Just because an article is not properly sourced doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist. I'm sure we can find plenty of sources to make these articles great. Let's not get lazy now and delete things we don't want to source... Illinois2011 (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all except the final two: to another American Idol article Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:48, 17 March 2012 (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/American_Idol_(season_11)_finalists&oldid=1264337771"