Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Gokey (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 no consensus. per Fritzpoll's advice at Articles for deletion/Kris Allen, there should be a general pause before going ahead with these. I don;t think the community has consensus. Myself, i'd have said to delete. DGG (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Gokey (2nd nomination)[edit]

Since other finalists are being deleted, let's review. --Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 16:29, 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 Danny Gokey that is being discussed, not Alexis Grace. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:01, 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 17:09, 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) 17:13, 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) 17:22, 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 17:28, 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) 17:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect, for now - Unlike some of the others like Allison and Jasmine, he has nothing else outside of Idol to warrant the article. However, it will almost certainly be required at some point and certainly post-Idol unless he does nothing. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, with prejudice against renomination and forum-shopping at DRV. This was closed as a clear keep before, there are plenty of reliable sources, and yet there are those who don't like it, so they DRV it, and try to slip a renom by. This is incredibly annoying to those of us who periodically check in, and try to maintain these type of articles. There is no harm to the project by maintaining AI finalist articles, and there's no problem with notablitity either. Please stop with these POINT-y nominations. H₂O Shipper 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They were snow kept, and Alexis Grace went to DRV on a procedural point of whether the arguments (common to all of these debates) based on WikiProject guidelines, was valid. The result was to relist Alexis Grace, which ultimately closed as delete. A renomination under such circumstances is not unreasonable. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant American Idol season. He's done nothing else, so there's no good reason to maintain a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was just started by a stupid Lambert fan because they hate Danny. So far on every season contestants have had a page for them WHILE ON THE SHOW. So we have to keep it. I'll put Lambert up for deletion if Danny is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.199.96 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we have ample precedent here (and precedent does matter. We're not in a vacuum here). But no matter what, let's establish something so we don't keep going through this. Because this could get real tedious real fast. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 01:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not yet eliminated, notability is not yet definitive.--23prootie (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis again? What is wrong with keeping this article, andf why were the other articles deleted? There was over 90% consensus to keep all of these articles last time. Bringing it up again is just shameful--Jojhutton (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the Alexis Grace bull is any precedent, I think our fearless leaders should probably delete this one too. No one knew who Gokey was before AI, so he's not notable, reliable sources be damned. Right, Fritzpoll? How long before you close this one on the "strength of the arguments" notion? H₂O Shipper 11:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Woohookitty, 23prootie and Jojhutton. Still active and still performing in the stage. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. BLP1E. Not notable for anything besides appearing on this TV show. ₳dam Zel 19:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC) And I want to add that some of the keep "arguments" are ridiculous. Notability "not yet definitive" is not a reason to retain an article. We don't keep "biographies" in anticipation of someone maybe becoming notable. And what is 90% consensus? That doesn't even make sense. OTHERSTUFF is also a poor reason to keep. The Idol project should have never made it a standard to have non-notable "biographies" lacking any significant biographical info on the top 12 contestants. Also, people need to be commenting on the content, not the contributor. Fritzpoll is being incessantly hounded to the point that is coming up on harassment. Comment on content, not the contributors; on policies, not those enforcing them. ₳dam Zel 19:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, cool! Now they're setting it up so that those who question terrible closes can be blocked for harrassment! Yippee! H₂O Shipper 03:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's done is done, the articles are already here. Let's not focus on the past but instead focus on the future. If you disagree with the rules, like User:Fritzpoll says, change it. Go the respective Wikiproject and make your suggestion there, before the season starts, don't go attacking individual contestants pages and expect a fallout. That way way we could avoid messy discussions like this.--23prootie (talk) 18:02, 15 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. 20:33, 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.

Almost no one is saying he shouldn't be covered at all. I'm just countering the idea that they should all have separate articles, when they can easily be covered in the article about American Idol and avoid being nominated for deletion altogether. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 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) 17:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes criteria #1 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, thereby passing WP:BIO. Aspects (talk) 21:32, 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 22:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting the inclusion requirements of WP:MUSICBIO no matter how his work is perceived. Unless the guideline itself is greatly modified in the next few days, he passes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect just as Alexis Grace was done. Other finalists should be nominated too. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes criteria #1 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, per several editors above. He may also be notable as having toured, but I don't see any cites (yet) that verify that. No all "American Idols" are notable, but some are, on a case-by-case basis. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC) F.Y.I., that would be criteria # 4: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Bearian (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Ths Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kris Allen pretty much moots this discussion as well as the deletion of every other articles related to this season's American Idol such as the article of Alexis Grace. Please don't go on and disruptively delete every other contestant's article, I think you could get blocked for that.--23prootie (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BEFORE, we should discuss redirect/merge on the articles' pages; not AFD. Neier (talk) 23:23, 17 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.