Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Gokey (2nd nomination)
Danny Gokey (2nd nomination)
- Danny Gokey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Since other finalists are being deleted, let's review. --Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 16:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- This was just started by a stupid Lambert fan because they hate Danny. So far, every season has had a page for them WHILE ON THE SHOW. So we have to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.199.96 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)