Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Rounds

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. Discussion to merge or redirect should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Rounds[edit]

Lil Rounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Her, too. --Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 16:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No reason given for nom. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:51, 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. Similar arguments apply to all of these as were applied at this particular AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - But still, what is the argument for deletion for this article, not a different article. It is Lil Rounds that is being discussed, not Alexis Grace. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:59, 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 17:11, 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) 17:24, 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) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the grand scheme of things, no TV show is very significant. The war in Iraq is significant. Aids in Africa is significant. The first black President in the US is significant. American Idol is a TV show. It's not significant. Looking at things relatively, this person is a contestant on a TV show, having done nothing of actual significance or note. Also, notability is not inherited. Just because the show is notable does not mean everyone appearing on it is. ₳dam Zel 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • People who live under a rock, somewhere in outer space, or the planet Pluto are the only ones who think American Idol is not historically significant. Like it or not it defined the first decade of the 21st century.--23prootie (talk) 02:09, 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. In addition, this article fails WP:RS as it has no reliable, secondary sources indepenent of the subject. Gazimoff 17:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all the content is related to AI. She's done nothing outside the show so it all can be covered in context. (I don't see the need to delete the history. If she ever does pass notability guidelines, it would be better to have the history around to jumpstart the article. If anyone worries about people reverting a redirect, I recommend protecting it instead). - Mgm|(talk) 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the word 'is' in my comment above, because it was missing. - Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement doesn't explain how the article meets our policies for inclusion. Could you expand on this? Gazimoff 07:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion was only initiated after Alexis's article was deleted. even though all Idol finalists tend to have their own articles. She is still on the show so anyway.--23prootie (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement doesn't explain how the article meets our policies for inclusion. Could you expand on this? Gazimoff 07:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, for now - She has no pre-Idol claims of fame (other than her sob story which is well-covered elsewhere). CrazyC83 (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to American Idol (season 8), non-notable. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. BLP1E. Subject has done nothing notable. Simply appearing on a TV show does does not make one notable. ₳dam Zel 19:38, 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 she does something else notable in the future that changes her notability, no one will remember nor care about her next season. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:34, 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.
  • Please take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because an article exists on a similar topic or subject, doesn't mean another should. Wikipedia operates without setting precedent in it's actions, and instead uses policies and guidelines in order to judge content. Many thanks, Gazimoff 14:07, 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) 17:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Obviously notable. No response to my comment needed. Gage (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE for mroe information on why this is unsuitable for deletion discussions. Many thanks, Gazimoff 00:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE for mroe information on why this is unsuitable for deletion discussions. Many thanks, Gazimoff 00:17, 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) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If this gets deleted then you might as well protest to have all finalists from seasons one through seven deleted as well. If you think, that means there's at least 70+ of these articles.-24.92.44.95 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Point nomination, article passes criteria #1 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, thereby passing WP:BIO. Aspects (talk) 21:37, 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. Gazimoff 21:58, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lil_Rounds&oldid=1137988535"