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 delete. The keep arguments are not compelling. Two of the arguments are basing it on past precedent, citing a WikiProject guideline as representing existing consensus. Such a guideline cannot override the policy of WP:BIO or our various other guidelines - the WikiProject guidelines clearly do not reflect a broad consenus, as evidenced here and elsewhere. WP:DGFA requires me to consider BLP in these cases as well as looking at the rough consensus. I see consensus in this discussion, based ont he strength of arguments to delete this article. Following this closure, I will make an editorial change and set up a redirect for navigational purposes - but the outcome of the AfD stands Fritzpoll (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Grace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace. Clearly the "SNOW" keep was rather controversial, with several people arguing to "overturn and delete" at the DRV here. The subject is a current participant in the Idol series, and there is a question as to whether that is notable enough for a biography. (My personal view is that this is somewhat beyond ONEEVENT since Idol is more of a series than an news event, but acknowledge that even finalists often become fairly obscure after the season is over.) I'm neutral on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep has enough news cites to fulfill WP:N  Chzz  ►  15:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge and redirect - Over half of the DRV participants (11/19) argued for "overturn and delete/redirect" with another arguing to overturn and either redirect or relist. The DRV nom outlined that 11 of the 14 keep votes in the original AFD were based on a Wikiproject's guide that attempted to supersede WP:N. The community has not accepted this weakening of notability standards, which the subject fails to meet. Simply appearing on a reality TV show does not make one notable. ₳dam Zel 15:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - A project's guidelines for inclusion do not trump those of Wikipedia as a whole, no way. This isn't the English Wikipedia with a smaller autonomous Idol Wikipedia within. If the person fails WP:BIO and/or WP:CREATIVE then the article must go. §FreeRangeFrog 17:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think anyone has argued this fails WP:BIO. The sources pretty clearly show it does. Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or delete per consensus at the DRV, which makes me wonder why this was relisted. Black Kite 21:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not for nothing, but this should be a multi-article nom. All of the Idol finalists have an article at this point, and many of them are no more or less notable than Alexis Grace. Not making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, just pointing out that there are a number of other articles that could be tossed in with this AfD. --72.226.206.86 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are certainly other articles on current (and previous) contestants that are no better than this one, but this AfD is a direct result of a relisting at DRV, hence is a single nomination. Black Kite 22:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect Ejfetters (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and cancel nomination based on past precedence for finalists. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I am disturbed by the failure to assume good faith in the DRV and related discussions. The Wikiproject criteria appear to do nothing more than accurately reflect the pre-existing consensus about which contestants can safely be presumed to meet the general notability standards. Because these finalists receive extensive press coverage. It is sad that so many Americans are able to name more Idol finalists than Supreme Court Judges or American Nobel Prize Winners etc, and they have much more interest in them. But that is the way things are. Google News says there are almost 1500 articles about Alexis Grace in the last month, which shows the Wikiproject guideline was an accurate predictor. It is much more consistent with the GNG than WP:ATHLETE and (shudder) WP:PORNBIO have been. And the attempt to put thumbs on the scale by people who want the article deleted is unfair. I don't think I ever saw a box stuck into a deletion discussion like the one here, which does not contribute to the kind of reasonable discussion that we are supposed to be having. As i have said elsewhere, I do a lot of volunteering at local libraries. In the last week, people have often asked for help on searching for the AI finalists online. When a subject is one that people want to look up information on, it is one that Wikipedia ought to keep. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Multiple shows over a period of time do not make for a single event. Keep as meeting the GNG (by a mile, a news search turns up a crazy number of hits). Oh, WP:BIO is passed due to those same sources. 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. A single season of American Idol (or similar shows) is a single event for notability purposes and if all the press coverage is coverage of the show that mentions her incidentally than she should not have a stand alone article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How do we distinguish a single event from something that's not? I mean if I person is notable for playing MLB, isn't that a single event (playing baseball in the majors)? To me, winning the lotto is a single event. Or getting killed. Or even winning "Who wants to be a millionaire" as it happens all at once (and thus is a single event). But something that is spread out over a season of TV (which I think this is) isn't a single event in my opinion. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, by the definition I am using most MLB players (and other professional sports people of average notability) would fall under BLP1E, whether that's a bug or a feature depends on one's point of view, I guess. Though I think that permastubs about sports figures are much less problematic than articles such as this which tend, in my experience, to attract much more BLP problematic gossip and rumour. It seems to me that saying that spreading out a contest over a TV season makes it inherently more than one event is problematic because it gives too much importance to the "artistic" decision of how to stage the contest and not enough to the issue of what coverage there is and of what quality. I believe that assigning inherent notability to people based on reality/contest show participation is problematic because it assumes the existence of sources to write a biography. However, if all the sources focus exclusively on on one (series of) event(s), i.e. their participation in the show/contest there isn't anything to say that shouldn't be properly handled in the article on the season and the logic of BLP1E applies. The point of "one event" is to say that people who are only covered in reliable sources in relation to a single achievement, activity, or event should only have that aspect of their lives covered in Wikipedia and that a stand-alone biography is generally not appropriate. Of course there also exist people who, while only notable for a single event, activity, or act have had their whole lives covered in reliable sources. We should have biographies of those people, BLP1E notwithstanding; but we shouldn't have ones that cover people who are only covered as a part or something else even if that event runs for 6 months. I don't claim a broad consensus for the particulars of my view, though I do feel that it is the best reading of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:BLP1E. It certainly has the disadvantage of requiring an individualized inquiry into sources and not being ammenible to per se rules like WP:ATHLETE. But that's a feature not a bug. We write from sources and their coverage and weight whould be reflected in both the structure and the content of the encyclopedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good answer :) I do disagree with your reading of BLP1E. "Spreading out" the contest isn't just an artisitic decision, its about how long people will pay attention to these folks. Rather than a 1-shot show, if there is enough interest that millions of people will watch the person over an extended period of time (months I think in this case) I think we have evidence of real notability of the person. Toss in the massive amount of coverage in the media and you've got an easily written article of a notable person. Thanks for the response! Hobit (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a famous assassin also a "one event" celebrity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.183.233 (talk) 15:31, 11 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.