User:Aditya/Archives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page has been created to store archives of significant discussions I have been a part of.


The following discussion took place at the Help Desk.

A question about notability

[edit]

Someone is creating articles like Malaysia Federal Route 1283 as I'm writing this. I'm hesitant to mark this for deletion but there must be thousands of federal routes. The information provided in these articles are no more than stubs, so why should we keep them? Is it encyclopedic to create articles about every highway in the world? Antivenin 08:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The jury is still out on that. If I were you I'd judge them on potential. Is there anything that can be said about the route apart from the fact it exists? It doesn't have to be included yet, but if it isn't, a stub should have the potential to grow. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Well there's not much you can talk about. As stated in the article it's a road that connects two places. Wikipedia is not a map. It should be deleted. Should I put it up for AfD? Antivenin 11:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You can look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Precedents if you consider AfD. I haven't followed road discussions and don't have an AfD opinion on the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This is something that has been debated quite a bit. I know there was a debate (which I cannot find now) when an article about a road became a Featured Article. Someone wanted to know how a road became a featured article. I think Mgm has the correct idea here. Are there reliable sources that support the article? Has anything notable happened on this stretch of road? I'm also reminded of our articles on towns. We have many, many articles that don't go beyond "Town X is a town in the United States, according to the 2004 census". TNXMan 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Nothing of any significance has taken place on this route. While I can still stretch my 'tolerance' with towns, making articles about roads is really stretching it. I know there are some roads which have good articles, but that's because they're well known, and notable. So, should I begin an AfD? Antivenin 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Significant to whom? Presumably everyone who uses a particular road finds it significant enough. You may consider yourself superior to Malay people, but I'd guess they would differ with your assessment. Stub articles don't hurt anything. You can easily ignore them. Why waste your time destroying information when you could be adding information? Destroying information makes Wikipedia useful to fewer people, thereby driving contributors away from the project and shrinking our pool of potential donors. Jimbo Wales wants to provide "the sum of human knowledge" to every person in the world, not just people who share your tastes. Which parts of human knowledge are people in Malaysia likely to find interesting? Presumably they will want to know about things in their immediate vicinity. Roads are verifiably a component of human knowledge, thus they are encyclopedic. Articles about roads provide a handy way to organize our information geographically. Most roads of nontrivial length will have subjects of our present or future articles strung along them. The subjects of these articles might not relate to each other in any way other than by their location along the same road, and that is precisely the relationship a traveler is likely to find most relevant. Such articles will naturally tend to mention the road; they might as well have an article to link to. Since Malaysia is not an English-speaking country, one must guard against English-centric bias against it. We can expect our coverage of Malaysia topics to develop more slowly than our coverage of topics in, say, the United States, where every article about a U.S. highway can easily link to many other articles about subjects located along the highway. Naturally the often-spurious and cruft-crufty guideline of "notability" will tend to be even more divisive and spurious than usual when applied to non-English-speaking countries. It's already hard enough for Malay speakers to edit on the English Wikipedia with the language barrier in the way. Let's not make it artificially even more difficult by biting them with some cranky nonsense about notability. --Teratornis (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Antivenin didn't say anything about finding Malays inferior... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabberwockgee (talk • contribs) 04:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we ask some Malays how they feel about having their highways declared "non-notable" by someone who probably doesn't speak their language and probably has not lived in their country. I don't see why topics about Malaysia are less important than topics about, say, Ohio where most inhabitants speak a form of English. Wikipedia has articles about lots of roads in Ohio and I have found some of them useful. Why wouldn't Malays deserve to have similarly useful information about their country? --Teratornis (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear me. Did I say I'd like it deleted because it was an article about Malaysian roads? I didn't. Stop assuming that I did, and stop making this an issue about regions. I have absolutely NOTHING against Malays. Read that sentence again. And again. I would have wanted this article deleted if it was about my country too. But let's face it, Wikipedia is not a map, as much as you might want it to be. And I know notability is relative. An article about some random person X might not be notable, but I bet he'd consider it notable enough. Do we keep that article? No. We don't. Is it because we are carrying out some personal vendetta against that person? No. It's because we prefer following Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and rules.
Maybe you didn't understand me when I first said it. That's absolutely fine. I'll repeat it here. There must be BILLIONS of roads all over the world. Should we sit down and create stub articles for all of them? The road outside my house is not notable by Wiki standards. It's notable enough for me however. Should I create an article about it? Please, just for ONE second look at it from a neutral point of view, and you might see what I'm talking about. I am not here on a mission to delete articles about Malaysia. I'm here to make Wikipedia a better place. So next time you accuse me of being biased or prejudiced, you might want to think about what I just said.
Still awaiting opinion about whether these articles should be AfD'ed. Antivenin 12:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW, you don't create articles first and add information later. Bad policy. Those who come to that article expect to see information, and not a request asking them to add information. Antivenin 13:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we not have deletion discussions on the helpdesk? If you think it should be deleted, take it to AfD. Otherwise, do not. There's no point having the whole discussion here first and then rerunning it at AfD. Algebraist 13:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to continue it here, and then refer the AfD to this discussion. And I want to get my understanding of policy straightened out, so I posted here. Antivenin 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Susan Boyle incident.

An editor nominated Susan Boyle for deletion. I !voted for deletion, and the rest can be explained by the posts below.

Post at Help Desk-

Why AfD frustrates me

[edit]
Resolved
 – Antivenin 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really resolved, but I can't go against consensus. Antivenin 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got a question on Wikipedia policies. More specifically, about how they're applied to AfDs. I'd like to direct your attention to this AfD. The nominator suggested that Susan Boyle does not satisfy notability guidelines as she's just another contender on a TV show. I agree with that, as contenders do not merit their own article. Then came a flurry of 'Keep' arguments stating that as she sang so very well and the judges gave her a standing ovation right after she sang the first note, she deserves her own article. Youtube was also being used as a deciding factor about whether she was notable or not. From my understanding of policy, Youtube should not / cannot be considered. Strong Keep over 250K youtube views already amongst well over 50 videos (edit: now over 350K on one vid alone and While I always strive to maintain a NPOV, I must point out the sheer quality of her performance... standing ovation from the judges, the entire crowd, after just the first vocal left her lips. were some of the arguments used. Also, if she is notable (which I doubt), it would be because of a single performance. Wouldn't that come under WP:ONEEVENT or WP:BLP1E? All the news paper articles talk about that one performance too.

So that is my opinion up there. And yet, I must be wrong. As Looie496 pointed out, 31 people wanted to keep it, 5 people wanted it deleted. So he closed it (non-admin closure). I was rather looking forward to an admin closure, as that admin would decide whether (1) Youtube can be used as a measure of notability, (2) WP:ONEEVENT can be ignored by zealous fans, and (3) whether AfD is really a !vote process or a vote process.

So I want to get your opinion on this. What do you guys think?

On a lighter note, here are some of the more amusing !votes:

Keep - it belongs here because I looked for it here on Wikipedia.

VERY STRONG KEEP - This article NEEDS to be on wikipedia. Without it, wikipedia would be a terrible place! Please, please, please keep it!

Keep (no, that's not a typo). ...

Oh yea, and since I'm posting this anyway, I question the relevance of WP:SNOW in AfDs. It's all very well in RfAs where a minimum % of supports are required, but AfDs require consensus. A hundred people could repeat the same wrong argument and it would still get closed by WP:SNOW. Not fair.

(Also posted at the village pump) Antivenin 08:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Arguments based on "I like it" responses should be ignored. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for more. --Gadget850 (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a case to be made here that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, ultimately, the question asked on AfD is: is the encyclopedia better off or worse off including article X. It is worth noting that this particular article adheres to the more fundamental principles of Wikipedia: verifiability, NPOV, no breach of copyright, etc.
If we'd like to indulge in wikilawyering, notability guidelines are only guidelines, inherently blurry and far from being universally followed. WP:BLP1E does not imply that notability derived from a single event is a criteria *against* inclusion, mostly it invites editors to think twice about it and whether the event or the person are to be covered. Worth remembering also is that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we do not aim to limit the volume of articles. Also Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is just an essay.
Another note here, in the spirit of Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy, if something does not require admin tools, then it does not require an admin. Makes no difference if an admin or a non admin closes an AfD discussion with a "keep" or "no concensus" result.
Finally, on the AfD process, and more generally on the idea of "concensus", I would argue that "decision by concensus" is a pipe dream. Sometimes it works: get people to sit around a table and exchange ideas, eventually strong arguments are made, people rally behind those and lo and behold, a concensus was built. Sometimes it does not, and you are left with several set of opinions. No concensus was established, yet a decision has to be made. In a professional environment, decision might be taken in a despotic way, by the project manager or whatever. In a purely collaborative environment, the decision making process would naturally take the form of a majority, absolute majority or supermajority vote. I think we are a quite hypocritical about it on Wikipedia, calling "concensus" what is often merely a supermajority opinion or even that of an absolute majority. The hypocrisy of it does not go unnoticed, which is why people frequently joke sarcastically about "!vote". The Afd process, in my opinion, mixes characteristics of a (super)majority vote, despotism (the closing admin gets to decide which arguments hold weight), though occasionally, a real discussion develops and a true concensus is established. One fault of the AfD process is that it attracts people more interested in having something to show for a future RfA nomination (an even more blatant example of a supermajority vote) than in building a concensus, casting !ballots hurriedly and never revisiting the discussion. I'm starting to rant, so I'll stop now. Equendil Talk 11:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The status of Arguments to Avoid and the notability guidelines isn't really relevant, but document common practice and not following either because they're not labelled policy is exactly the sort of wikilawyering that should be avoided. When an admin closes a debate, they should do so based on the strength of the comments each of the comments the original poster mentions are forms of WP:ILIKEIT or big numbers that don't actually prove anything. Occasionally people vote to keep something with the reasoning it has thousands of google hits. (These are often bad hits because the searcher failed to use quotation marks, but even if they do, it's the content of the pages that matter, not the volume). Unless the deletion is clear-cut with no one disagreeing (apart from the nominator or creator), a debate should be closed by an administrator. (Mgm, who's about to go and thus logged out) - 131.211.210.206 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
(Note that this reply does not come after reviewing the AfD, I'm on my way out the door, sorry) It sounds like you have a valid point, Antivenin. I would suggest putting this case up for review at DRV to see if the closure was handled correctly. TNXMan 11:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Antivenin, Hi. I don't want to bite, but several things come to mind as I read this post. The AfD is actually the place to make these arguments that you're making to delete this article. Some editors may see this type of posting to the Help Desk (for getting help on how to use Wikipedia), and the Village Pump (for discussion of ideas concerning Wikipedia) as Forum Shopping. Arguments such as I LIKE IT work both ways (see I DON'T LIKE IT). You may also remember seeing WP:NOTPAPER in your travels, we are not constrained by a limited amount space for our articles. I think the actual AfD is the better place for this discussion. Best of luck — Ched :  ?  13:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a little hard to do that when the Afd has been closed, rightly or wrongly. – ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd say re-open it as an inappropriate non-admin closure. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, but I think reopening the debate so soon after closure (whether proper or improper) runs the risk of being labeled disruptive and pointy. As I mentioned above, DRV is probably the best venue. TNXMan 14:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to note here that since this discussion started, the AfD was reopened...and has since been speedy closed again, this time by an uninvolved admin. --Onorem♠Dil 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well it does certainly appear that this isn't one of those items that will fade quietly into the night. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
@ukexpat at the time I started typing my reply it was open - by the time I finished, it was closed, I'm guessing we'll need a calculator before it's over ... lol ;) — Ched :  ?  14:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Open again. I reopened it because of the recent change to AfD that said to quit with the "snowball keeps" and let them run a full 7 days. (I previously !voted to keep, so I'm not trying to get the result to change.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Due to a cross-posting, this is also being discussed at VPM: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Why AfD frustrates me. – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how long before it's an AN/I listing. — Ched :  ?  15:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And....cue ANI: Afd now reopened per discussion at WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle again. – ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Post at Village Pump (miscellaneous)-

Why AfD frustrates me

[edit]

I've got a question on Wikipedia policies. More specifically, about how they're applied to AfDs. I'd like to direct your attention to this AfD. The nominator suggested that Susan Boyle does not satisfy notability guidelines as she's just another contender on a TV show. I agree with that, as contenders do not merit their own article. Then came a flurry of 'Keep' arguments stating that as she sang so very well and the judges gave her a standing ovation right after she sang the first note, she deserves her own article. Youtube was also being used as a deciding factor about whether she was notable or not. From my understanding of policy, Youtube should not / cannot be considered. Strong Keep over 250K youtube views already amongst well over 50 videos (edit: now over 350K on one vid alone and While I always strive to maintain a NPOV, I must point out the sheer quality of her performance... standing ovation from the judges, the entire crowd, after just the first vocal left her lips. were some of the arguments used. Also, if she is notable (which I doubt), it would be because of a single performance. Wouldn't that come under WP:ONEEVENT or WP:BLP1E? All the news paper articles talk about that one performance too.

So that is my opinion up there. And yet, I must be wrong. As Looie496 pointed out, 31 people wanted to keep it, 5 people wanted it deleted. So he closed it (non-admin closure). I was rather looking forward to an admin closure, as that admin would decide whether (1) Youtube can be used as a measure of notability, (2) WP:ONEEVENT can be ignored by zealous fans, and (3) whether AfD is really a !vote process or a vote process.

So I want to get your opinion on this. What do you guys think?

On a lighter note, here are some of the more amusing !votes:

Keep - it belongs here because I looked for it here on Wikipedia.

VERY STRONG KEEP - This article NEEDS to be on wikipedia. Without it, wikipedia would be a terrible place! Please, please, please keep it!

Keep (no, that's not a typo). ...

Oh yea, and since I'm posting this anyway, I question the relevance of WP:SNOW in AfDs. It's all very well in RfAs where a minimum % of supports are required, but AfDs require consensus. A hundred people could repeat the same wrong argument and it would still get closed by WP:SNOW. Not fair. Antivenin 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest taking it to deletion review. For one, it is a non-admin closing by someone already involved in the discussion. It should have been left to an admin. --Farix (Talk) 11:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
With my admin hat on, I have reverted the closure and relisted the debate. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Good deal. I honestly didn't think the closing would stand at WP:DRV because 1) It was a contested debate closed by a non-admin. 2) The closer already commented in the debate. 3) The closer merely vote counted instead of weighing the arguments. --Farix (Talk) 12:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, in case anyone wants to know, the reversion ike this is allowable by WP:DELPRO and the advice in WP:NAC, whose contents under "Inappropriate closure" caused me to revert Fritzpoll (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)
Under a literal interpretation of the current rules, as cited by Anti, I'd say it should probably be deleted. However the voting at this AfD may indicate that these rules reflect only the consensus of those most active at AfD - a complaint that appears quite often on various discussion pages. There's been public criticism of WP's current deletionist tendencies, with suggestions that it's driving editors away (one in PC Pro, where a journalist created a stub on a notable subject, Political Quarterly and it was deleted within hours; another in The Economist).
The article Susan Boyle's only content issue is excessive use of diret quotes, although each is attributed and referenced and only short extracts are quoted from each source, so I expect there's no problem about WP:COPYVIO. I'd WP:IAR and keep it. --Philcha (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


While there might be ground for a procedural relisting due to the AfD having been closed by someone involved in the debate, and apparent vote counting:
1) We should not be wasting time and effort for purely procedural reasons. WP is not a bureaucracy etc. The debate was promptly snow-closed again.
2) Non admin closure ? So what ? What is the rationale here ? If something does not require admin tools, why insist only an admin should do it ? Unless I've missed something since I joined the project, there is no aristocracy here, no prerogatives, only potentially damaging tools granted to trusted users. I have no issue discouraging inexperienced editors from closing AfD debates, but the essay at WP:NAC is taking it several steps too far in my opinion. If the only thing wrong with an AfD closure is that it was performed by a non admin, then there is nothing wrong with it. Equendil Talk 14:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The main issue is identifying experienced users. Admins are already reviewed for their experience. Ordinary users are not, and require separate review. Dcoetzee 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And on the other side of the equasion, why are we always in a rush to close debates? imo, WP:SNOW should only apply after a certain amount of time (i.e.: 3 days) and only if the !voters are unanimous in their views. I don't like policy for the sake of policy, but I hate unnecessary drama, and allowing AfDs like this to be closed early, especially by an involved party, only creates a ton of drama. Just let the damned AfDs run their length. Resolute 13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Due to a cross-posting this is also being discussed at the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help desk#Why AfD frustrates me. – ukexpat (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Afd now reopened per discussion at WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle again. – ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Post 1 at AN/I-

AfD for Susan Boyle‎

[edit]

The AfD-

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. Reading this entire page, the lines are pretty clearly defined even though it's a dayish early from when it can be reasonably closed, that notability has been established (and is still clearly growing--I count as many as 800~ active news stories circulating right now on Google News alone, and that's just English-language). The BLP1E doesn't apply, and won't as she's going on past the audtions obviously--it would be willful ignorance and made-up arguments to say she won't gain still more notability and WP:RS with even just one more performance on the television show. She's not a private person at this point for our purposes, and is also now getting ready to sign to produce her own album. It's completely reasonable to assume between the discussions and !voting here (about 85% in favor of keep, give or take, for the bean counters) that Susan Boyle passes our notability standards today. rootology (C)(T) 05:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: (This was just posted to my talk, in response to MickMacNee; consider it an expanded close reason for this AFD.)
First off, BLP is not a factor here in any level, to just clear that, and I'll explain why BLP1E is a false argument here. And again, feel free to DRV it. I fundamentally agreed more with the collective weight and opinions from the Keepers being more in line with our history, precedents, and principles, and ideas like this should be openly tolerated, since the presumption that "Internet notability" (what does that even mean?) is "less important" than "real world" notability--that's really what you and many Deleters here are arguing, no matter how it's dressed up--are naive attitudes.
The Internet IS the real world at this point, for better or worse, no matter how hard or vigorously some people like to poo poo the entire web 2.0 thing. It's nothing to do with our needlessly rigid, increasingly irrelevant--each month, it fades in social value as an internal concept--"Recentism" ideas. The press is faster now since it doesn't rely on the permanence of physical media to deliver news. Recentism because of this is a wholly subjective thing, with too many people valuing "physical" news in some vague way over "transient" news, with "transient" being the Internet. Again, what does that even mean? It's a nonsense argument. A well-maintained bit of data that is properly preserved in an open format will last theoretically forever. A newspaper will eventually rot away and crumble. But you see where this is all going?
It boils down to Deletionists vs. Inclusionists, and the foolish idea that an AFD or DRV is binding forever. I closed the AFD as I saw where it was heading, and where it had gone per policy. Consensus clearly supported Keeping already; I agreed that the Keepers had won the arguments and day--and not just by numbers, Wikidemon, Ched, the first few sentences by Stude62 (painfully true, AGF aside), Raven1977, and J Van Meter. BLP1E is absolutely a false argument here as Iakeb points out: her performance; the significance and separate reporting on her unique YouTube popularity after, and since then we have her being signed to a record label and when (in a week?) she performs again we'll have even more events/details. Each passing day there were more and more sources about Boyle visible online and in searches, so presumably as well in "old world" media like physical newspapers, of course. I closed based on what has come before, the opinions expressed, my interpretation of policy, the sourcing there (and growing--27 refs today, 21 when I closed), and the fact that 1) she's not a BLP1E, she's a BLP4E now unless she drops dead before her appearances on the actual show contests, and 2) every single time one of these social culture articles like hers gets AFD'd, if the person isn't really a BLP1E--like hers, they are virtual always a better article later as the sourcing really does not stop.
Many people like to AFD quick, hard, and fast, in the presumption that it will keep something "out" of WP longer. Nonsense--DRV is too smart to allow gaming like that in any pointless Deletionist vs Inclusionist content race. If something isn't a one-off or Deep Fancrust, sourcing will always build over time--it's inevitable, like the tides themselves. And like the tides themselves, the consensus backed by policy was pretty darn clear on the Boyle AFD: keep. Deleting Boyle today would also, in my personal opinion, be a completely pointless strategic move of no benefit to anyone. The day after her next appearance on the show, or the minute the media comes out with the information on the forthcoming album, it would sail through DRV so fast that people's heads would spin. Why nuke the article for a week (or two) then? It would be a pointless procedural exercise that would lea<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>d to rules-jockey admins fighting people trying to recreate it for the 10-14 days, and pointless things like ANI alerts. rootology (C)(T) 13:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle

[edit]
Susan Boyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

At this moment, she does not satisfy notability guidelines. Yes, she may have been noted by the media, but she is just "another auditionee" on a TV talent show. D.M.N. (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC) - nominator withdrew -- see below.

On behalf of the policy based merge and delete votes aleady given, and in light of the fact this has already run for 3 days, and in light of the fact that most keep votes do not mention a single policy, I have reversed your withdrawal as highly innappropriate. If this is reverted, then if necessary, I will procedurally renominate it myself. MickMacNee (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I disagree with deletion. At the moment, there are over 65,000 views on her youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY), thus granting her a significant cult following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.148.125.126 (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: it's a premature article creation. Alexius08 (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Youtube video views are not considered according to Wiki policies. Also, being a contestant on a TV show does not automatically guarantee notability, and the material in the article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Antivenin 14:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You're applying rules arbitrary here. Wikipedia:Notability (people) clearly states that entertainers with a large fan base are notable. By arbitrarily not considering YouTube views you're conveniently rejecting a significant indication of fan following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devijvers (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Sources are reliable, independent, and coverage is significant. That was my thought process. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Additional comment: I encourage everyone to look at this column on Ms. Boyle. She has progressed beyond fame for a single event. Her fame is in her biography and story now, and in that symbolism for the possibility of that despite age or looks. She isn't famous because she can sing - many can. She is famous for being who she is. Individuals with full bios who were killed on 9/11 are the same way. WP:BLP1E is about those from news stories. She is clearly beyond a news story. --\/\/slack (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep over 250K youtube views already amongst well over 50 videos (edit: now over 350K on one vid alone R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)), and the #1 story on Digg.com today BY A LONG SHOT (over twice the diggs of the second hottest story). R3ap3R.inc (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Youtube does not establish notability. This has been repeated countless times. Antivenin 16:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
No, but the Times and the Telegraph combined do establish notability. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep She's famous and will be more so over time. On the news tonight. Scifiintel (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
As for YouTube, the awards that this clip recieved already should make it notable:
  • Strong keep and consider merging. Why wasn't this one sentence stub simply merged into the Britain's Got Talent page, instead of being immediatly nominated for deletion, which ignored WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE? Ikip (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


I oppose merging; I will do a little legwork and expand it, I just did a little... let some of the media catch up, the performance wasn't even 24 hours ago yet. While I always strive to maintain a NPOV, I must point out the sheer quality of her performance... standing ovation from the judges, the entire crowd, after just the first vocal left her lips. TR3ap3R.inc (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
As you mentioned yourself, you're not looking at this from a NPOV. Her performance must have been amazing, but that doesn't mean she deserves her own article in an encyclopedia. That would mean deleting it if she messes up her song one day. Antivenin 16:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, Speedy Closedouble !vote struck Terrillja talk I added enough QUALITY references to satisfy notability. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedy keep is NOT applicable here. There are enough people !voting for delete. Antivenin 16:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, please refrain from !voting twice. Antivenin 16:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
they voted when it was a one sentence stub; read the reasoning. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, over 50,000 Ghits for Susan Boyle in the past 30 days. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Added a ton more refs and related pages, including The Herald, Reddit, and CNET (news.com) R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm counting at least four dozen stories from a number of reliable sources on Google News primarily discussing the subject of this article. It seems her notability is not dependent on the show itself, which would rule out merging the singer's article into the show's article. Notability may not be temporary, but our ability to distinguish notability may be temporarily clouded, so I say keep for now, subject to review once her "long-term" notability is clearer.   user:j    (aka justen)   19:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
At the moment its BLP1E as far as I can tell. Until she wins or finishes in the runner-up spot in the competition, this should be deleted. D.M.N. (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Even if she loses next round right away, she will have at least as much notability as Gary Brolsma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R3ap3R.inc (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 April 2009
I'm having trouble squaring that policy with people on this list. --\/\/slack (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, she has had one audition, she is no where near the final shows on TV, hence why BLP1E applies. D.M.N. (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of being contrary, I don't think this coverage is based on an event (otherwise she would be no more notable than any of the myriad of bad singers who audition for any of those shows). And I hate to pull out an other stuff, but William Hung, anyone? But, in any event, I see no need to rush through a delete. I believe she is notable at this point, but it will be easier to distinguish whether that notability is tied to a single event or not in the near future.   user:j    (aka justen)   19:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
This makes sense. --\/\/slack (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Snow keep Anybody familiar with the story of Paul Potts would understand why this person is extremely notable. Looie496 (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
What's a Snow keep? R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
See WP:Snow. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Boyle is merely someone who auditioned, Potts won the competition. Bit of a difference. D.M.N. (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, but there are millions of Britons who are already thinking of her as the next Paul Potts. If her article were deleted, there would be no end to the howls of outrage. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • procedural keep No real opinion on this, but clearly deletion should be off the table. There is an obvious redirect target if people are worried about BLP1E so this doesn't really belong at AfD. This isn't AfR. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - DO NOT DELETE THIS --If wikipedia is ever to have any credibility as a source for the people as opposed to stuffy academia, this entry totally belongs to be here. She has already touched thousands, and the ball is rolling, even if she by some fluke shouldn't win there will be records and concerts in her future, the word is already spreading like wildfire across twitter,facebook, email and even word of mouth on the street. Today the UK, tomorrow the world. I don't care what Wikipedia guideline might support the deletion, then that guideline should be removed. --IceHunter (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep She is no longer "just another auditionee" on a talent show. She has accomplished something that is newsworthy on a worldwide scale, more so than many contestants from the past who may have gone farther in the contest. This is not about how she's doing on the awards program. It is about the cultural significance of her performance, which will be remembered long after this particular round of the show has passed, regardless of the final results. If nothing else, she is a YouTube phenomenon, similar to Gary Brolsma (who's Wikipedia entry is not in danger of deletion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimvanm (talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep for now May end up being a flash-in-the-pan, but deletion now would be premature. Plenty of third-party coverage, much more than for your typical contestant in a show like this. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • More Info: As of the end of 12 April 2009, the YouTube video was the single most viewed video of the day, the single most favorited video of the day, and one of the highest rated videos of the day. The submitter was awarded the most subscribtions of the day as well. See also the updated infobox following thisR3ap3R.inc (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that, as an anonymous IP address, my vote counts in an AfD. If it does, I would vote keep. However, I'll note either way for the record that Wikipedia's notability policy for music states that "[a] musician or ensemble (note that this includes a [...] singer [...] ) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria [...] Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." A search on Google News for articles where both the terms "Susan Boyle" and "Dreamed a Dream" are present result in 24 separate press mentions. Running a search for "Susan Boyle" and "Britain's Got Talent" yields 27 press mentions, some of which are separate from the first batch of results. Notability has, I daresay, been established multiple times as a result. On a separate note, I firmly believe Wikipedia has now overbalanced itself on the deletionist-inclusionist debate; where once it erred far too much on the inclusionist side (list of words Ewoks said in Return of the Jedi!), it now is far too deletionist, to a point where these constant acts of hairtrigger overdeletionism consistently make Wikipedia look rather foolish to the public eye. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia will always get torpedoed by everyone for one reason or another, either it's "look at this garbage they've got floating around, idiots" or "they're deleting WHAT!? Frigging wikinazis..". Doesn't mean that we don't need to keep tinkering with things, but there will never, ever be a balance which suits the vast majority. This is a group discussion initiated by one editor after all, on a project which houses millions of articles ministered by thousands of people, so if the world says "look at what Wikipedia's doing" they've misunderstood what's going on here from the outset. Someoneanother 23:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:BLP1E. There's a precedent with British talent shows, at least, that we don't create biographies for contestants that aren't in the final Sceptre (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per loads of independent sourcing. BLP1E should be applied to negative events, not positive ones....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • There's nothing in the policy that indicates it should be applied only to negative events, although that is part of the overall spirit of BLP policy. In this section of it, however, the language is strictly neutral on "positive" or "negative" coverage. BLP1E is clear, and it also clearly dismisses the idea that "loads of independent sourcing" matter if they're based on the one event. -- Noroton (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep - Meets WP:N; WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because reliable sources are already writing biographical stories on the individual and so in that sense there's no real "event" to cover. The only remaining question is whether this individual should have her own article or whether it should be merged into the article of the series, but that's a stylistic question better answered in another discussion. Oren0 (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - it belongs here because I looked for it here on Wikipedia.Bcameron54 (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That does not justify keeping it. D.M.N. (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it does, when an actual search is made, it shows demand for information, and implied worthiness/notability. I also STRONGLY agree with the above mention of the pendulum swinging to the deletionist side. Wiki should only concern itself with factuality and organization, not on what I should or should not be interested in, which is precisely what these absurd notability guidelines actually mean. I don't care if YOU think it's not notable or worthy of inclusion, I do. And I am clearly not alone. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.165.119 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Although she is currently "only" a first-round (second-round) contestant, she will at least at this moment remain notable enough to warrant inclusion in the database. Many people who hear about her video in the media will refer to WP for more information on the subject. 92.108.16.46 (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge into Britain's Got Talent (series 3) which is bizarrely light on details for a typical reality show article. The problem is WP:Recentism, it's notable now and briefly but long-term, that's debatable. All the sources (excluding the non-reliable ones like YouTube and Digg) are really just discussing her audition, a classic WP:BLP1E situation. If she actually becomes famous on her own, then spin it off into a new article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep (no, that's not a typo). 99% of contestants in reality shows don't warrant their own article, per WP:BLP1E, and third party coverage is usually limited to articles about the show and perhaps in their own towns' local papers, but not only has coverage on this one shot round the world, some of the coverage is starting to talk about Boyle in her own right (her life, where she lives etc.) Now, if she fails horribly in the competition proper then the information could be merged to the show article, but at the moment I believe it would be premature to do that. Call it WP:IAR. Black Kite 09:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - not to mention the rapidly growing amount of media attention that this is gaining overseas. Susan Boyle has been covered in every major newscast on national television in Australia. If attention from another country, especially for a show called "Britain's got talent," doesn't assert notability, I don't know what does. --ClEeFy (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Week Keep - while I don't agree YouTube hits matter worth a hill of beans for notability, it does seem Boyle has received enough coverage in the media to edge over the requirements for WP:N and WP:BIO (though certainly not WP:ENTERTAINER. For now, keep, but do some SERIOUS clean up, as I was personally tempted to say speedy for copyvio as the bulk of the article is beyond excessive quotes from various papers above and beyond what is allowed in an article that size. The lead is also excessively gushy. WP:MOSBIO is down the hall, someone please apply it along with some basic good writing. If she turns out to be a 1E, no objections to a revisit in 6 months. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Merge to Britain's Got Talent - after thinking on it more, decided to change my view. Still feel it needs serious clean up first, clean up the copyvio, then what's left should be merged to the series article. If, after the series is over, it can be more clearly shown she is not just a 1E, then can revisit the idea of a standalone. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - notablity is established by a number of publications in the first range media and by the popularity of the youtube piece Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep She just made the German news, which almost never happens with non-national TV show contestants. I just noticed this AfD because I was looking her up, which in itself is a degree of notability. – sgeureka t•c 16:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - lots of good sources show regular old notability. However, it could be a "not news" problem. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Notice is very premature. And as to notability: when someone makes the news in so many countries that can not be an issue. Pe1pbu (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I am tired of all these speedy deletions. I found this article useful, it gave me much information, proven and news-worthy, about an event which has just happened. Where do you want a current event to be noted - in the Encyclopedia Britannica? --Akral (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • comment Wikinews wouldn't be a bad place to list a current event, actually....
  • Comment - can't this just be snowballed now? In case not, strong keep per media coverage. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I can't believe that we're even having this discussion. She's featured on several different news media sites—people are bound to wiki her name. Webbbbbbber (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I wanted to read this article, as her story is on the front page of yahoo. Here in America! International notability. Royalbroil 22:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Same reason as RB. It's absolutely not at case of that above mentioned policy. Also, if you read further into the Yahoo! article, she's already been contacted by Sony BMG. Ceranllama chat post 23:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • VERY STRONG KEEP - This article NEEDS to be on wikipedia. Without it, wikipedia would be a terrible place! Please, please, please keep it! --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete (kidding) Keep This woman is already being discussed in non-tabloid papers, this is hardly wicked whispers in the gussets of a red-top's entertainment section. It is not usual for a participant to receive international coverage, it is extremely unlikely that she's suddenly going to vanish without a trace. Coverage of her is going to belong somewhere on Wikipedia, come hell or high Rickroll, so time will tell whether it's eventually merged or what, but deletion doesn't come into this. Someoneanother 23:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seriously kids. Three times? I saw the video after seeing the AfD discussion. This morning it's on Yahoo news and the video has over 2 million hits on YouTube. Give it up. She's notable. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per the general notability guideline. I'm surprised that this discussion has been relisted considering the overwhelming consensus that has already been established (maybe someone will continue relisting it until the "right" consensus is achieved?) Bradley0110 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Snowball keep. Meets general notability. Substantial mention (entire articles on the subject) in dozens of major reliable sources. The article needs to evolve and will do so over time, and may ultimately end up with a focus on the performance and pop culture phenomenon rather than the bio. There is no policy or guideline against covering the subject of pop culture, television show episodes, viral videos / internet phenomena, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • General notability is only a measure of a presumption of inclusion. You still have to then demonstrate how this article has lasting significance to not represent news, per NOT#NEWS, and is truly not about a person famous for one event, per WP:BLP1E. These are the basic policies, which we rightly defer to when, as you point out, no closer notability guideline exists. 'This article may evolve' is most certainly not a good argument. A flurry of coverage in RS is certainly not equal to SNOW keep. MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • BLP1E is one of the more frequently misunderstood policies. People are often made famous - and notable, meaning of lasting interest to informed readers - for a single thing. Events are often notable, and by definition an event happens only once. BLP1E reflects the truism that a person's connection to a notable event does not always make the person themselves notable. That is clearly not the case here, because the event is all about Susan Boyle the person. Her life history, demeanor, voice, and persona as the never been kissed, "unlikely diva",[1] are all crucial components of the event. Further, although it is speculative at this point it appears likely that more noteworthy things are soon in store for Boyle. She is considered the favorite to win the contest (satisfying one notability criterion) and apparently has charted that song in the UK (another). Cowell, who is in a position to know, predicts she will be a star and is trying to find her a record deal. As another editor has said, if it snows anymore we need to get the skis out. Wikidemon (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly meets our notability guideline, it's time to close this discussion. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep First there are enough WP:RS to cover this. Second, while perhaps a fairly gray area, I see the Idol show as one event, and the YouTube popularity as a different event (even though they are directly related). I think this meets our WP:N requirements. for those saying "at this time", I might add that notability is not temporary. I'm also not particularly fond of the way this was forum shopped at the help desk and village pump simply because someone didn't like the fact that consensus seems to be a keep. See: WP:NOTPAPER Also, YouTube is not being used as a "resource" to establish a contentious fact, but rather an indication that an event has occurred, which by wide-spread viewership, indicates a secondary event notability. — Ched :  ?  15:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article has reliable sources, we've got plenty of room to host the article, notability though currently derived from a single event, is likely to grow considering the nature of the show, plus all the relisting for dubious procedural reasons is getting out of hand. Equendil Talk 16:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'd say it's the multiple dubious closes that are the problem, not the relistings. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Not really, let's face it, it isn't going to close as a delete, now or in a few days. Equendil Talk 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Notable person. This should never have been reopened, common sense has gone out of the window. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong delete One appearance in an audition for a TV show does not give notability. Youtube videos and hits do not give notability. A short burst in the news does not give long-term notability. No objection to recreating if and when she is truly notable - notability of the long-term sort. --Russavia Dialogue 17:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly falls under WP:1E - "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as her fame is currently tied to just one event. Number of hit on YouTube is irrelevant, and so are the number of people comment on blogs and etc. If she does land a record deal in the future or receives additional coverage beyond this one performance, then she would pass WP:BIO. --Farix (Talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

[edit]
  • KEEP! As said quite near the beginning: <>er WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Sources are reliable, independent, and coverage is significant. She continues to be the subject of much discussion around the world. The articles and videos are being widely linked by bloggers and across Facebook; personally, I searched out the Wiki article after viewing one of those links. Only change--expand as much as possible in accordance with policies. Final note: this is Wiki (means "fast") pedia, not Encyclopedia Brittanica, This is the sort of subject/event which best takes advantage of that difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.117.74 (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC) — 75.161.117.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep but source. Garynine (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). This woman is currently famous in the newspapers, even reputable ones, for one event only. That is not what notability is. At this stage (without prejudice to her going on to win), this woman is not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough" to deserve the attention of an encyclopopoedia (as opposed to the likes of OK! Magazine, This Morning, or Digital Spy), or to justify the recording of her life story (and of course record the fact she had a cat) for all time, in her own separate article. If she does not progress further, she will no doubt not even be considered "significant, interesting, or unusual enough" to warrant any more coverage at all. MickMacNee (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Look, this is the current stance. If you would have actually read Wikipedia:Notability (people), particularly the entertainers section you would have read the following:
Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities [who have] a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
To make your case for deletion you'll need to prove Susan Boyle does not have a significant "cult" following and a large fan base and with that I wish you luck.
  • KEEP! Quite honestly, whoever nominated this article for deletion, and whoever votes to delete it, is an idiot. This woman is already a superstar. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • THE STRONGEST KEEP I CAN POSSIBLY EXPRESS. I agree with the person above. This woman is clearly notable and there are not enough adjectives to describe how stupid someone is who wants to delete this article. Nightmareishere (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)\
  • Comment: Please keep this discussion civil. – ukexpat (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep if one trick pony Judson Laipply has a wikipedia entry, then any notable person can have one. Susan Boyle maybe nobody to you right now...but given the way the media corps glom on to people soon there will be much more to her entry. SOME record company some where is on the phone right now negotiating a deal..and then there will be makeover shows and special performances...you will only have to recreate the thing. Give the woman her 15 minutes. EraserGirl (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You said it yourself. This woman's performance That's WP:ONEEVENT right there. Antivenin 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep One event or not, plethora of RS coverage indicates she meets GNG. If nothing else materializes, merge in six months, but this AfD is premature since the coverage is still happening. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If she is worthy of an article now, she always will be - notability, as opposed to fame, is not temprorary, it does not fade away. The prediction that in 6 months time this will be a backwater only fit for mergeing is a clear indication it has no place here at all. We are not a giant current events dump, that needs a periodic clear out of all the information people don't care about anymore. That is why presidential assassins, and not Britain's Got Talent contestants, are given as the example of people famous for one event that are worth creating, and keeping, articles about. MickMacNee (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Notability never fades away? Someone who was notable at any time always deserves an encyclopedia article? I can't agree with that assertion, which I consider purely theoretical and belied by real-world scholarship. Encyclopedias mediate between now and all of previous history. We like to talk about a Neutral Point Of View, but merely in deciding what to include and what to exclude, there is of necessity a type of point of view expressed, if only on what is and is not significant enough to merit inclusion. And anyone who thinks that opinions about what should or should not be included in encyclopedias do not change over the years and centuries is welcome to do what I've done, which includes comparing 100-year-old editions of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians with more recent ones and seeing what they considered notable enough to cover, and how. Or, to make a broader point, I'm sure there were loads of notable officials in Egypt at the time of the Pharoahs and in the Roman Empire who are excluded from this encyclopedia, because in spite of their notability in those days, they are not much remembered today - as indeed today's Foreign Ministers will be forgotten in 3,000 years. So guidelines are a good thing, whether on Neutral Point of View or Notability, but we do have to live in the present and look at Ms. Boyle as currently notable. There is ample time to reconsider her notability in the light of future developments, but I beg to differ with the idea that notability never fades away. If you'd like to argue that point, I would ask you to please name some of the most important prophets of Baal or argue why without benefit of thousands of years of hindsight, they weren't notable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
        • You cannot have 'current notability' by its definition Wikipedia. Waiting around until this person is 'no longer notable' before deleting, is not only just patent bad practice, it is pure negligence against Wikipedia's philosophy of doing no harm to living people. The stuff about Rome and Egypt, while philosophically interesting, is just a giant straw man argument, and wholly irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to coverage of "Britain's Got Talent" until she's more notable than her performance on the show. If she wins, or gets what seems to be a likely music contract, then we've got something more than just what WP:BPL1E and WP:NOT#NEWS warns against. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep THis is notable if I looked for it on wikipedia and found it to learn mroe of her. She is from the united kingdom and i know who she is. and i think it satisfies notability guidelines for music with the whole being press mentioned everywhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Oglesby (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Certainly seems early to delete this. If she loses and fades away, sure. But it seems worth letting it go on more than a week before deleting it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Dogmatic rigidity does not reflect the nature of wikipedia or the medium it exists in. All of the rules in place here were created to address the needs that have arisen organically, the phenomenon of Ms. Boyle's appearance on the public stage indicates a need for continued evolution of those rules. Someone who generates more than eight million YouTube views in less than four days and is referenced in every form of media is obviously a notable figure. chrisblask (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If the strength of Wikipedia is not that a community of editors can come together and produce a reasonably informative article on a phenom that has captured the public's and press's attention, then let's just submit articles and edits by pen and paper and snail mail. Ideally, we could send them by transoceanic cargo to some remote atoll for collation and input, that way, by the time they arrived at their island destination for input to the encyclopedia, we'd already know if Ms. Boyle had staying power or becomes yet another flash in a pan. Until then, given the plethora of WP articles on "notable" topics far less notable than Ms. Boyle, her article deserves to remain. PetersV       TALK 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment In terms of "one event", as I understand it, Ms. Boyle has been singing/performing from the age of 12--therefore there must be 35 years of events leading up to this particular event which made Ms. Boyle notable. Second, in terms of "we don't count YouTube views", well, then perhaps we should ban other indicators of popular/predominantly Western culture indicators, such as counts of Google matches in the English language. We can't ban one quantifiable indicator of cultural notability while indicating another quantifiable indicator is recommended for establishing notability. We're talking out of both sides of our mouths. PetersV       TALK 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The fact that this woman has come out of nowhere in the last three days should not be a reason to remove this article. There are plenty of third party reliably sourced articles about her already and her appearance was only a few days ago.----InaMaka (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Clearly this person has garnered worldwide attention for a previously unknown talent. Don't rush to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.84.159 (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — 71.31.84.159 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strongest possible keep: The woman is an international sensation, for God's sake, and looks like she's going to stay that way. She's clearly in the top of the running for Britain's Got Talent, and it is clear that she will remain notable. Also, is it me or is it snowing? TallNapoleon (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Britain's Got Talent (series 3), currently the sole reason she is recieving news coverage is her apearance on the television show, if that changes in the future or the amount of relevent information becomes unmanagable an independent article could be split off. Guest9999 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, ordinarily I'd suggest merging with BGT 2009 until she is more famous, but she has generated a great more attention than just YouTube (Op-Ed in Herald for example) and that is only going to increase. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible keep: She has had 4 million YouTube views in four days. I know that's not enough, but I also read that she is in record negotiations with Simon Cowell. (Can't find the source now.) Certainly deletion would be premature.Twiddlebug (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly a case of WP:ONEEVENT. From the policy: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. [...] a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." For now, a redirect to the show's article should suffice. If she goes on to have notable, verifiable success, then she'll merit a separate article. -- Intractable (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • keep this article for she is an inspiration for many people! who cares if she isnt well known to the public eye but with that many youtube hits, its well worth it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.3.76 (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — 24.58.3.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep no point in repeating the many erudite policy reasons given above; RS, N, not one event, etc etc  Chzz  ►  04:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - The reasons given don't suffice, youtube views =/= notability, and as per Intractable.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • umm .. Numa Numa anyone? — Ched :  ?  05:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, she is not a Youtube personality like the Numa Numa guy. The clip isn't supposed to be on Youtube and I am sure it will be taken down soon.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
        • As far as I can tell, that primary clip was posted by the official BGT account, so I don't think it's going anywhere.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
          • The account that posted it, here almost certainly doesn't look like an official ITV Britain's Got Talent account. D.M.N. (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is an article that is worth keeping. The "one event" rule is intended to avoid giving a biased and (perhaps) unduly negative view of subjects. I don't think it applies to someone who has always wanted to be known as a singer, and now is being recognized as one. GreenReaper (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Ms. Boyle's story at this moment is breaking news. That wouldn't qualify it as encyclopedic material if nothing else ensued. However, it's very likely that her fame will increase shortly. Deleting the article now will only necessitate starting another one with the same title soon. Keep it and avoid the need to duplicate the work already done. Cognita (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Right now, this article is very topical. If this is only her 15 minutes of fame, she will turn into a footnote to history, and then, it will be appropriate to reconsider. But I think it would be shortsighted to nullify the good work that's been put into this article, when there's a distinct possibility that there will be reasons to enlarge the article to note various professional activities in the relatively near future. My recommendations? Let's keep the article and reconsider in 6 months to a year on the basis of what's happened. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — Restlessheart1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • I want to add another argument. I expect Wikipedia to cover breaking news stories. The fact that I am sitting here in New York, having never watched Britain's Got Talent and only been dimly aware of the existence of the show, yet know about Susan Boyle shows the power of news to travel quickly across oceans in this Age of Internet. I expected that there might be a Wikipedia article about Ms. Boyle precisely BECAUSE she is newsworthy, and I was happy not to be disappointed in that expectation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep She's made history. Youtube aside, her portion of the show has been shown round the world. Even if her star fades quickly, (and I hope it doesn't)her moment of fame will be remembered as one of the most emotional pieces of live TV ever. restlessheart1 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restlessheart1 (talk • contribs) — Restlessheart1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep I only found out about her on the news this morning and I immediately wondered if she had a wiki article. She is very famous now and is well beyond being just another auditionee. She is notable for the media impact she has had with her singing ability and will be remembered in years to come for this moment. It is also likely from what is being reported in the press, she will go on to win recording contracts. Keeping this article is therefore advisable. B626mrk (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Ms. Boyle's notability is based not on her being "just another auditioner", but on her remarkable talent, and her very pointed object lesson of not judging a book by its cover. More to the point, she has been widely noted. Dozens of articles, millions of hits, talks with a major record label -- things that don't happen with "just another auditioner". The fact that her single, simple audition has produced such a intense, widespread response establishes her notability. Clearly, people are coming to WP looking for more information about her; it should be here for them. Darguz Parsilvan (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Things go fast. Some time ago I would had agreed not to keep. But now she is already notable... and then some - and it has gained enough momentum for gaining more notability points for Wikipedia, really soon indeed. Although even some time ago I would had (erroneously) been temped to vote for "keep" because of the obvious extraordinariness of this situation; even then maybe, just maybe it would had also been the right decision to keep. 213.7.222.25 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — 213.7.222.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep: This lady is going to be big. She is famous worldwide and has a huge media interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wacky WeLsH LaD (talk • contribs) 12:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: As per above. Also I only came to Wikipedia once today and it was to look up information on Ms.Boyle after seeing a report on her on CNN.Colincbn (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • STRONG Keep The only reason why this article was tagged for possible deletion is because they perceive Ms. Boyle as a pop cultural oddity. This is Wikipedia snobbery at its worst, and this is the exact reason why I bailed on Wikipedia as a contributor four years ago. Folks, this web site is not, and will never be Encyclopedia Britannica; a place when the academic elite sit around for years arguing over how many angles dance on the head of a pin before they will agree to place an article in the tome that pins actually exist. This woman has incredible talent and she is a legitimate worldwide phenomena in the short run. She also has more talent than Sarah Brightman on Brightman's best day. Stude62 (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep:This is art and cultural history in the making. If you delete the entry, you'll look foolish in the long run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.120.172 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — 74.226.120.172 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I think at the point: I am withdrawing the nomination. D.M.N. (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've reversed this withdrawal, this is nowhere near a foregone conclusion, and withdrawal after three days is highly innappropriate. MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • It's fine for DMN to withdraw the nomination, but that does not automatically close the discussion, since other people have voted to delete/merge.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Agreed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Highly innappropriate [sic]? Yeah... Why don't you get unnecessarily angry about it? I mean honestly, simmer down a little, geez. As D.M.N. nominated it, I think that he's perfectly entitled to withdraw his nomination—as SarekOfVulcan said, it's still up for discussion. Oh, and Keep. Even if she doesn't win, it seems that she's still established enough of a following to meet the notability standards—a following that, especially if she does not win, would easily develop into a "cult" following. She is notable now and will not lose her notability. Keep. - Waidawut (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:ONEEVENT, until such time as this lady becomes notable for more than just this one event. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep (as Wacky WeLsH LaD and Colincbn above. Delete is in this case very stupid idea. --Cinik (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep SHe is clearly notable enough with major coverage in not only UK media but international news and television media. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:ONEEVENT - she'll be chip wrapping in a couple of weeks - and if not, recreate. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's true that she has been covered repeatedly in the news, but per WP:BLP1E, that's not really a justified reason for an article. The policy says "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." If/when she becomes actually notable for something other than singing once on a show, then we can discuss the recreation of the article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -The overwhelming majority of people have clearly said the article should not be deleted, will someone please move this process on and declare the outcome KEEP. How many people do we need before that is done, its just pathetic this has had to go on for aslong as it has. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    This is not a vote. It's about quality of argument. The discussion should not be closed early. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Please define what you mean by "closed early". When do you think its reasonable to close this AFD which clearly shows the majority of responses against deletion? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
A small subset of disruptive editors seem it is fit to ignore common sense and are insistent that it continues to the end. This AfD has already been closed several times. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Its a disgrace that a few people because they dont like the outcome and majority view just try to continue this process until they get the outcome they want. It really is rather pathetic, she is clearly notable enough to justify an article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Question (and this isn't directed at any one individual editor, and I don't want to be a disruptive editor, but...). When claiming "ONEEVENT", are we referring to the performance? .. the non-typical reaction of the judges? .. the audience response? .. the 5 million YouTube hits? .. the Global coverage by ABC News, The Daily Telegraph, The Sun, the Daily Mirror, New York Daily News, and now UPI? .. the 2:1 odds that OLBG Sports is taking in relation to her possible success? .. the Ashton Crusher/Demi Moore twittering coverage? ...the meeting with the Sony BMG record company to discuss a recording deal? Exactly which "one event" are we discussing, or is this all considered one event? Just curious. — Ched :  ?  16:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Try writing a separate article on any of those things that does not contain in its majority the details about audition on Britain's Got Talent, and you will see quite clearly that they are all what is clearly defined as 'the event', for the purposes of 'ONE EVENT'. If she went on to gain a recording contract, and sold a million records, then quite clearly you could write a separate article about her recording career, and the audition would be a mere paragraph of her article. Judging by the hair splitting (read: wikilawyering) going on in this Afd about what constitutes a notable 'event', John Hinckley, Jr. would have hundreds of articles about his life - but he doesn't, because he is the actual poster boy example of a person notable only for one event, in the very policy page that defines it, WP:BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The events at this audition (irrespective of how they evolve in the future) have had a very strong cultural / social impact. The main point here is not Susan Boyle herself or parameters of the voice or the number of auditions that have taken place so far. The point is that this story illustrates the so rare phenomena how an unknown person can cause admiration / suprise etc. Therefore, this article deserves its place here as a specific cultural reference. All considered, I give it a Keep. --RokasT (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually a strong keep. This person's notability may have been sparked by a single event but she has quickly grown into a notable individual with significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources in many different parts of the world. The article should be kept and developed from what is already available and expanded as more becomes available. What is already available justifies the article. WTucker (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • DeleteShe drew a lot of attention by singing on a singing contest reality show. So what? What if we start making articles for every person who has done that. Would you like an article on Ian Bernardo? Alexis Cohen? Let's not stop at singing contestants, let's do an article on every person who managed to become a youtube sensation! I want to see an article on this kid, I really would like to know what's his story! Seriously, let's wait until she has a career or she is at least William Hung status for an article. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - There are at least two distinct events to cover: (1) a talent-show performance (2) an explosion of YouTube views (currently way over 5,000,000) within four days. These are related, but separately notable. WP:ONEEVENT does not apply.-Iakub (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

[edit]
  • Keep - Two reasons: One, it DOES seem to meet notability guidelines - I found out about her from CNet (and a quick check on google news turns up over a hundred articles about her (137 at the time of this writing). Two, Wikipedia's policy on deleting articles makes it difficult to recreate an article that has been deleted (a la Alexis Grace), so deleting at this point would be premature. - Maxvip (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • It would only be difficult to recreate the article if it was deleted, and then somebody tried to resurrect it with no substantially new information. But if she went on to win the competition, or sell a million records, or do something completely different but also notable, then where's the difficulty? Especially if someone had dutifully recorded the only worthwhile information here in the relevant article, the one about the show. From the reactions of some in this Afd, you would think we had no 'notable contestant' sections in any reality show article at all, and this Afd was tantamount to demanding her erasure from the pedia completely. It is not. But anyway, 'it might be difficult to recreate it' is not a very good argument at all. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. I hesitated to include that argument at all, as people will always attack your weakest argument. But in the interest of AGF, and trying to make sure all possible thoughts were put out there, I decided to include it. I don't think it would be a reason to keep it on its own, but if there were a 50/50 split, this might be a good "tipping point" argument to keep. Also why I said "keep" instead of "strong keep".
      • Honestly, if this article were deleted I don't think it would make Wikipedia any less of a good resource; but I don't think keeping it weakens Wikipedia at all, either. So IMO there's no reason to delete it. Personally, any time I read about anything in the news that I want to find out more about (like this woman), my first course of action is to check Wikipedia. If people are interested and actively searching Wikipedia for information about someone, I think that, by definition, should make them notable as far as WP is concerned. If, for some reason, she drops out of the public sight and people no longer want to search wikipedia for stories about her, then the article can be deleted. Maxvip (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
        • They are common views, but they are not supported by any policy. We do not keep articles only to delete them later when they serve no purpose, and any information we choose to provide because a large number of people are looking for it *right now*, still has to prove it's worth. Popularity/reader interest is not the bar of inclusion here. MickMacNee (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not interested in the TV programme or the singer, but there was a substantial news story on BBC news this evening about her and the worldwide phenomenon that has resulted from her appearance on saturday. This is clearly an exceptional response to someone appearing on one of these shows.--Michig (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Numerous articles in newspapers all over the world, plus millions of Youtube hits. Noteworthy. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion
All AfD discussions run for at least seven days. However, a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies.

For the record, I want this article kept. And I have re-opened it more than once.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well its a pointless waste of time keeping this process going for another 4 days when we all know what the outcome will be. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
If it's a waste of your time, don't read the page. Simple, yes?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Its a waste of time because the person is clearly notable enough to qualify and we know what the outcome will be anyway. Keep wasting peoples time though thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone read WP:POINT lately? Wikidemon (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Sarek on this (and I also agree the article should be kept.). I doubt there's any real reason not to follow procedure here. We do have some delete votes coming in, and there have been some drastic 11th hour changes in the past. I suspect it's better to follow our own guidelines, and avoid any potential fallout due to claims that something was railroaded through without proper respect to all editors given. — Ched :  ?  17:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would you delete this? It's about a notable person and is completely factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.218.57 (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The main argument for deletion is that it's a "biography of a living person notable for only one event" (WP:BLP1E), and hence not suitable for inclusion. I disagree with that, but it's a legitimate argument to make here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
That's an idiotic rule, and totally arbitrary. Let me demonstrate: If the 4th planet from the Sun were to blow up right now, you could call that a single event. Yet at the same time, another person could look at it as multiple events, or a single event with multiple consequences that are inseparable from the first event. The same exact reasoning applies here. This so-called "single-event" is so significant that the fallout from it must be considered and thus it no longer qualifies as a "single event". The fact that we're dealing with a person and not a planet is of little consequence. SPEEDY KEEP -- itistoday (Talk) 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Which of the criteria at WP:Speedy keep are you suggesting are satisfied here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Except it's not an idiotic rule (and I voted Keep as well). We are not talking about deleting articles about single events, but articles about people who are only known for a single event. For example, there's a big story in the UK at the moment (link) about a police officer who assaulted someone at the G20 demonstration. Is the demonstration notable? Yes - here's the article. Are the police officer or the demonstrator notable? No - even though they've been written about in multiple reliable sources, they themselves aren't notable except in the context of the demonstration, and so they would thus fail WP:BLP1E. Hope this makes it clear. Black Kite 18:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • comment: when the time comes, we may want to consider having a 'crat close this one. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  19:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Someone will only reopen it ;-) Seriously, look at all the support, how long does this really have to go on for? Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • April 19 I believe. — Ched :  ?  19:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - the level of media exposure is overwhelming. And is likely to continue. --Leifern (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know what the article looked like at the time of nomination, but after looking at it just now, it definitely meets the amount of substantial coverage in reliable sources needed to provide notability. I can't think of any other reality show/talent show contestant to receive this amount of coverage after only one appearance, either. And to reply to the merge option, I don't see it as practical to merge the content into the article for the show, as I think it would make that one section far too long and lopsided compared to the sections on the other contestants. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 19:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Britain's Got Talent (series 3) per 1E. So far I see no sources that indicate notability outside of the show. If that happens, then spin it back out. Youtube videos are not reliable sources for anything; just because it's watched a lot means jack. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a worldwide sensation. I don't need to repeat what nearly everyone else has said. DragonFire1024 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep! - For goodness sakes, she was on NBC Nightly News yesterday. That's not exactly a gossip show. There is a knee-jerk reaction within Wikipedia to immediately delete anything that doesn't conform to certian users' idea of newsworthy or reference-worthy, and it needs to stop. Keep! Scanlan (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I would argue that, even if those rules applied (and I don't believe they do in this case), that we should WP:Ignore all rules and keep this due to the sensation she's produced. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge: Despite all of the keep votes, and my own emotion, thinking this woman deserves to have her own article, I to not belive that this topic deserves to have it's own article. I really have to get around to reading the policies, but I think that there are just so many people in favour of this topic, that it can't be removed entirely from Wikipedia. Prymal (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. WP:BLP1E. She is not encyclopedically significant outside the context of this one TV show appearance. Cover the event, not the person. - Brian Kendig (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've just today heard about her and came to WP to learn more. Thanks for not disappointing me WP! -hydnjo (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. She got notable VERY quickly. Her name is everywhere. - Liontamer (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge Seems to me that the perfect place for her would be the entry for Britain's Got Talent under "other notable contestants" Her acheivement, while very new, has still elicited very large media\news response. - ThaRock1976 (talk) 21:08 15APR09 —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC). — ThaRock1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Something dreadful would have to happen for this woman to not remain notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The best arguments for the keep have been made above by individuals far more eloquent than I. But another reason should become self evident very soon, her success is very likely to gain in notoriety, and with Wiki not having space constraints, the privilege of being one of the first encyclopedias with an article on her should be reason enough. (long live wiki!)HawkShark (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge into Britain's got talent and unmerge when she wins the show. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. How odd. Last month I consulted Wikipedia looking for information on Nicholas Hughes. His death was covered by the New York Times, yet his article here was being considered for deletion. Today I look up information on Susan Boyle -who is being covered by CNN and The Washington Post among now countless other reputable news sources internationally- and this article too is being considered for deletion. As the Wikipedia article about itself states: "Jonathan Dee, of The New York Times, and Andrew Lih, in the 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism, have cited the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently-updated news resource." Readers come here for information - both on historic and current events. Susan Boyle's story is a very current event and the article on her should stand. J. Van Meter (talk)
  • Keep WP:BLP1E is for articles about people where the event received the coverage not the person and that person essentially remains low profile while the event enjoys notoriety. The coverage of Boyle is about Boyle herself, not the event. Boyle has received international attention and will likely continue to receive it. Coverage mentions her by name and is focused on her. WP:BLP1E is a useful guideline for avoiding a plethora of articles on non-notable people swept up in notable events but it doesn't apply here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioFan (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This has sparked world-wide interest...if it ends in a couple of months then merge, but it should remain in some form. 216.30.171.130 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or Keep but Rename An identically worded article entitled "Susan Boyle's appearance on Britain's Got Talent" would satisfy BLP1E, which seems to be the only serious objection being raised now. All depends how anal we want to be, I guess. SP-KP (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like it or not, she is getting world-wide coverage. The show is not. This is not a BIO1E event because she has become bigger than the show. I42 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability comes down to one thing - has the subject received non-trivial coverage by independent, third-party sources? In this case, the answer is a resounding yes. faithless (speak) 22:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The 35.027[2] page hits so far should speak for itself - how would there be this many hits, if she wasn't notable? Sertmann (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - As per all the folk above with stuff about reliable sources and whatnot. No reason to delete it. -- Cheeseman Muncher (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep As notable as William Hung and he couldn't even sing. Like Mr. Hung... Mrs. Boyle's story is everywhere.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • OK... want a guidline or policy... how about Wikipedia:Notability... I actually read it... MRs. Boyle has been covered significantly by several reliable sources and those sources are verified... that's what notability astates needs to happen. It has happened... end of argument.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and revisit — Let's see how things progress. If it turns out that Ms. Boyle is a transient, here-then-gone meme, we delete the article; if it turns out that she's more than that, we keep it. It's that simple. As for now, there seem to be enough sources and coverage to warrant the article's inclusion, but we should probably revisit this issue after a few weeks, when we will have a clearer idea of how notable Ms. Boyle will end up being. —Animum (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem with that argument is that notability is not temproary... no... Mrs. Boyle is notable just becaudse she's notable. I can;t site a specific policy or guideline... but kjust take whatever rational make's William Hung notable and apply it to Mrs. Boyle.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
As I said a little further up in this discussion, notability is not temporary, but our ability to distinguish notability (i.e. the event versus the person) may be temporarily clouded. Hence why I agree with Animum that we should keep the article for now, subject to revisit the situation in a few weeks if Ms. Boyle decides to go back to living a quiet life with her cat. Somehow I doubt it given her talent, but we'll see.   user:j    (aka justen)   23:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. When I said, "[...] when we will have a clearer idea of how notable Ms. Boyle will end up being," I meant that our judgement may be clouded for the moment and that it would be wisest to revisit this after the hype dies down. I realize that "will end up being" is not the best phrasing in the world, but she's going to either become more notable or stay as notable as she is now. Notability cannot decrease (after something has been done, it's very hard indeed to take it back completely), but it can increase (Ms. Boyle might perform again, which would generate more coverage and sources, which in turn would make her more notable). (Note: After mulling it over, I refactored my first comment slightly.) —Animum (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The point I'm getting at: She seems notable now, but we might be caught up in the hype and have misjudged, so it would be prudent to revisit this when we aren't as clouded. —Animum (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This woman has become iconic in the very short time of her that she's become known. As one person said, if that non-singing hack William Hung can have a wiki-page an a beautiful sounding bird such as Susan Boyle from West Lothiam should have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushsimmer (talk • contribs) 22:37, 15 April 2009
  • Keep Has become well-known quickly. If it's a one-hit wonder, it can be deleted later. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course Keep Her YouTube video is up to 7.2 Million hits, she's on the Nightly News, blah, blah, and if this doesn't designate "celebrity" we need a new definition. If she goes nowhere, dump the article. And as a matter of Wikipolicy, there are hundreds - maybe thousands - of articles about people much less celebrated, not to mention animals. If Dr. Johnson's cat Hodge (deservedly) has his own page (and photo), surely Ms. Boyle should be permitted her 96K of bandwith. Seduisant (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Over 800 hits on a Google News Search. Maybe her fame won't be sustained, but anyone who captures so much attention in such a brief period is notable forever. Propaniac (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It's all been said above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, due to large number of press stories focusing on her as a person, rather than commenting on her simply as a participant in a single event. Speaking personally, if somebody like me who lives in America, has never watched any of these shows and is usually completely oblivious to pop culture has heard about a person, then I say damn over-literal interpretations of the policies, if necessary we can WP:IAR. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Snow Keep WP:IAR. I understand and can't say I fully disagree with a lot of the technical reasons to delete, but just as Ms Boyle's performance transcended all expectations, IMO the event transcends the ordinary guidelines due to the incredible public response. It is not harming Wikipedia in the least to keep it.Zola (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. this should help you make your decision..SSBKs (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously, WP:BLP1E is not very popular. It is, however, policy, and this subject is known for one event and the coverage surrounding it. -- Noroton (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Looking at WP:BLP1E, can you put your hand on your heart and say that Susan Boyle "essentially remains a low-profile individual"? If that is so, then you are correct, but I don't think you are. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Individuals like this are not what BLP1E is for. People who are primarily notable for one event can still be notable enough for biographical articles. See for example Chesley Sullenberger or Seung-Hui Cho. The first question to ask when checking if 1E applies is whether the sources cited primarily cover the event or the person. When the sources start writing biographical articles about a person, their shot at BLP1E is gone. The policy exists so that we don't extrapolate an article about a low-key person only because they're involved in an event, not to stop us from having a biography on an individual who is the subject of biographical articles in reliable sources. I'd also like to ask what the "event" is that everyone would like us to cover. Do you really want a Susan Boyle's appearance on Britain's Got Talent article, which is really the event that's generated all of the attention? Not to mention, per TimVickers above, that the idea of this person being "low-profile" at this point is hilarious. Oren0 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Sullenberger saved 155 lives. Seung-Hui Cho murdered 32 people. Boyle made Amanda Holden cry. The press has noted such biographical information as, she has a cat called Pebbles. They have not done for Sullengberger or Cho. By your interpretaion of notability and BLP1E, and your apparent yardstick of inclusion of the presnce/absence of 'biographical articles in reliable sources', this makes Boyle more deserving of a Wikipedia article than Sullenberger or Cho, patently a wrong conclusion. This sort of standard newspaper backstory does not mark out a person as being above the bar of being a BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Like TimVickers, I'm an American and I'm not normally aware of reality TV (in the US, much less the UK) or celebrity gossip, but I know about her because the story was highlighted on National Public Radio news. She's famous for one event, but the amount of attention she has received for that one event is extraordinary. --Orlady (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. For all the reasons above. She was in the newspaper this morning here in Toronto, Canada, and obviously has a following. I'm not sure I understand "one event" in this context. There are lots of unique, one-time only events that qualify for inclusion. I say keep now, and nominate for deletion in a year if she's truly a flash in the pan.Quietmarc (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge into Britain's Got Talent (series 3), per all the above, WP:BLP1E, etc. "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." When she wins, recreate. Lychosis T/C 02:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:ONEEVENT. If she goes on to bigger and better things, the article can be recreated. As it stands, she hasn't quite reached the threshold for notability, though she likely will one day. AniMatetalk 02:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Changing to weak keep. People will be searching for this, and frankly... I watched the video. She's close to notable and assuredly will become so shortly. AniMatetalk 04:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Definite Keep -- Susan Boyle's performance has created a type of sensationalism that is rarely seen - thousands of news articles have been posted, web sites and blogs all around the world are marketing her - just days after her performance. This will set a new threshold for viral marketing - something rarely seen of this magnitude - and should be included as an internet phenomenon. --Grosed (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Definite Keep -- The very fact that there is so much debate about keeping or not keeping this entry makes the case for keeping it, although some research could add facts and new data. This is a worldwide phenomenon here. And my contribution: hey -- this is a digital reference. We're not padding extra pages into a bound volume. Just get the facts straight, but I can't even fathom a reason to delete the entry. (Ehsventnor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsventnor (talk • contribs) 01:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Definite Keep -- Susan is now the all-time top stat hit on several networking sites and is nearing 10 million hits on her video after only 3 days. Wiki is the first place I went to when looking for information on her. The ability to host an informational article on someone who is suddenly notable such as Susan is a key aspect of wikipedia. This article should have never been considered for deletion. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.139.175 (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge Just because you were personally moved by her performance doesn't make it encyclopedic. Merge it with the season 3 article or delete it. If she wins or gets a record deal she deserves an article, but until then she's just a contestant on a reality show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.155.54 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This woman was mentioned two days in a row in NBC nightly news. When someone sees that clip and wants more infomation, shouldn't they be able to go to wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.123.17 (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: If that hack William Hung gets a page on here, there is absolutely NO reason to delete Susan Boyle's page!
  • Keep: Per deletion guidelines, there is nothing that can constitute a deletion of this page. This entry belongs here for now. Should she fall by the way-side in later months, then perhaps this can be deleted at that time. MattAdamsMagic (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree that there are no policy justifications for deletion. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS both imply that we should merge this to Britain's Got Talent (series 3). To quote WP:NOT#NEWS, "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." -- Intractable (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: We should delete - I agree that it's too early just yet. In the meanwhile, we'll see how things turn out, no? Let's not rush this. Every article represents the quality of Wikipedia, and creating articles based on YouTube hits does not speak well of this site. Revy D. (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: I see no need to rush a delete. This entry belongs here for now. Oldfarm (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: There are over 3 million views in youtube, and all major British newspapers have run articles on this singer. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5152638/Britains-Got-Talent-church-worker-Susan-Boyle-becomes-YouTube-hit.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.62.106 (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Snow keep (WP:Snow) Similar to the comment below, I'd say keep for now. It maybe that this is better recongized as not news (WP:NOT#NEWS) or better catagorized based upon the event (WP:BLP1E) after people have time to look at it in a more editorial light. 02:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.218.233 (talk)
  • Comment I wanted to add a bit to what I said above. While I think we should keep the article, having reviewed the 1E policy, I can certainly understand that argument. But I still say Keep, for two reasons: 1) According to Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means, the rules exist to improve WP -- that purpose trumps everything, and "In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." I think it's pretty clear what the consensus is here. 2) Those arguing for deletion primarily point to 1E, and while as I say I can understand that argument, I think what people are missing is the greater context. Let's look at a clear example of 1E: Hurricane Katrina was certainly a notable event; if, say, ABC News were down there and spoke with someone who had lost their home, that person would not merit a WP entry, as they are clearly not a significant factor in the event. If there were a person who organized groups of volunteers to assist those affected, you start edging toward notability. If there were a person who made extraordinary contributions in time, money, organization, etc. to the relief effort, and had a significant impact on people's lives, now we're talking someone who merits an entry. As the policy states, giving the example of Hinkley, 1E doesn't apply if the person is a significant factor in a significant event. Obviously, Ms. Boyle is the significant factor in this event, so it only remains to establish whether the event itself is noteworthy, and I think this is where the Deleters are not seeing the context. The reactions of Simon and Piers and some of the audience members before Ms. Boyle started singing, with Piers actually expressing revulsion at one point, are representative of something very significant and deeply-embedded in our culture: to judge beauty by outward appearance, and that only by conformity to some artificial standard. In recent years we as a culture have finally begun to come to terms with this, to examine this flaw in our collective perception, and to recognize that beauty comes in many packages, and everyone has the potential to be beautiful. This shift is a significant occurrence, and Ms. Boyle's audition is a major indicator of it, a major marker. Even if Ms Boyle were to decide that getting through the audition is enough, and to drop out and go back to her village, this event has and will continue to have profound ripples throughout our society. It isn't "just an audition". The instant, enormous, broad, passionate response to it demonstrates that. It clearly resonates very deeply and strongly with many people, making it a notable event in and of itself, and Ms. Boyle along with it. And if you don't buy that, see #1. People are obviously coming to WP looking for information on this, and I think they should be able to find it. Darguz Parsilvan (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence to suggest subject is historically significant.--Otterathome (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Media coverage is substantial and shows no signs of abating for at least the run of this series. Proserpine (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Huge amount of international interest, numerous articles, and it isn't a single event, since we will discuss her work with the church, volunteer work, helping her sick mom, performances for her cat which are also notable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlnteam (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure performances for her cat are very notable. :0 Lychosis T/C 02:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as she seems to have generated considerable interest in the media (although I certainly never heard of heard before 2 minutes ago, literally). Like William Hung or Sanjaya Malakar, it seems there's something about Susan Boyle which just fascinates people. That generates interest, that produces media coverage, and the result is notability. Otterathome's comment above ("no evidence to suggest subject is historically significant") and similar comments do not come close to reflecting Wikipedia guidelines for Notability. --Boston (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    Going on that means, if I saved a baby from drowning and this was reported in several local newspapers, that would make me notable enough for an article. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E exist for a reason.--Otterathome (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.250.232 (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not Notable. 12bigbrother12 03:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Lots of interest. Does someone really have to historically significant to get an entry? Hey, if she doesn't matter in 5 years, delete her then, or shunt her off to an area where articles go when they no longer matter. The question is whether she's of interest now, and the answer is yes. She's a pop phenomenon. That's plenty of reason for an entry in a Wiki. Or is Wikipedia only about things made of granite? odyzzeuz 10:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odyzzeuz (talk • contribs)
  • Note however Notability is not temporary. If it was just a short burst of news reports about Boyle, then she's not notable. Since it's been more than news reports -- it's been essays, commentaries, etc. -- her notability is permanently established. --Boston (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Snow Keep for now, per several users above. At this point, there's really no telling how famous she's going to become. For now, at least, she has been recognized by many different media outlets as having a notable performance (because of which I would support a name change to Susan Boyle's performance on Britain's Got Talent or something, if it would help with the WP:BLP1E problem). -Bwowen is now a Forgone conclusion! t|c 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP:BLP1E - subject is known for only one event in which she hasn't even won. JamesBurns (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
As a thought, Boyle could be argued to be notable for two events, firstly for the performance that was reported in the first wave of coverage about her, and secondly for the level of world-wide interest that her performance generated. Stories are now analysing this coverage and discussing this reaction and what it says about our society and its preoccupations (such as this). If this had just been a jaw-dropping performance, then perhaps BLP1E might apply, but it has gone beyond that now - the story is a story in itself. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Whether everyone realizes it or not, the frantic opining by editor after editor about whether Boyle is notable or not hints strongly at her notability. Where did all these editors come from? Some regularly opine in AfD discussions. But it's obvious that most are here because they heard about Susan Boyle. --Boston (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC) - PS -- as of last count, her Wikipedia article has been viewed 82,714 times!
  • Keep I learned about this woman through Hong Kong media (in Chinese), where nobody would otherwise be interested about the show BGT at all. It is one thing for a British show to recieve international coverage from English (language) media, but when it get Asian media's attention then it should be big enough a reason for the article to stay. I don't know about WP jargons; I just know Susan Boyle is no longer some woman, but more a pheonemon. 64.198.200.71 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Is media coverage a secondary source? Is the event significant?
  • Strong Keep It is highly likely that Susan Boyle will keep some degree of fame. I have heard about her on NPR and a number of other major news networks. She is also a very inspiring and talented woman. I would be disappointed in Wikipedia if this article were deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supadupaman7 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Notability Guideline for People: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Do CNN or YouTube or any of the other global media covering the performance qualify as secondary source material? Wikipedia appears to define a secondary source as "a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." If these other media sources qualify as secondary, Ms. Boyle's notability is arguably presumed. (Perhaps this points to a deficiency in the current definition of "secondary source".)

According to "Articles about people notable only for one event": "If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a se<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>parate article for the person is sometimes appropriate. *** 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." Based on this discussion, another question is whether the performance itself is significant, perhaps with consideration of any inherent cultural statements and the significance of the series generally in pop culture. On the other hand, perhaps coverage has been transient, i.e., not sufficiently persistent.

Although the performance itself was very good, more importantly the media reaction and non-professional responses have been amazing. I recommend permitting the article to remain at least for a month or so, allowing editors to develop the article and provide interested viewers with information. After a while, persistence should be evident.--Rpclod (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete for now - this is a classic case of a media blitz article; of course there's tons of hits and a media reaction, because this just happened yesterday (figuratively speaking), and it's news. It is important to note however, that WP is not news. What Boyle is at this moment is an auditioner for a show, which is not notable in and of itself. If and when she: a) gets into and wins the competition; b) gets a contract and releases an album; or c) does something else tangibly notable that illustrates the non-transience of her fame, then we can consider an article on her. A perception of notability or future notability based on one event is definite WP:BLP1E and in some cases WP:CRYSTAL. Let something actually happen, and I would have no qualms about an article on her, but guessing something will happen is really not on. MSJapan (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • your condition a) and b) makes sense to me, although they seems to show how much our world is obsessed with commercial success over other things in life. condition c) on the other hand is not necessary; I think our debate here now is more about how notable or significant Susan Boyle is as a person in our time and our history based on what she have already done, and she doesn't have to "do something else" to achieve that. I bet by now the story of her life has already affected some people on this world. In a way the situation is more like "she may not deserve a WP entry at first, but as the media hype grow and the notability her story has already recieved, it is too late to delete the entry." 64.198.200.71 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.200.71 (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. She should satisfy notability guidelines. She is already signed in the last four days with Simon Cowell and Syco (a subsidiary of Sony Music). He scooped her up over the weekend. Her first album will be released world-wide later this year. She will be a singer with some renown. Her YouTube hits moved from 250,000 per the April 14th denoted hits to over 9,000,000 on one YouTube video alone with dozens of more videos of her performance available with thousands of hits (even millions and hundreds of thousands) on each individual one. Readers would be better served with access to her personal information, and the ability for editors to update her site from this one as she gains in popularity with the release of a CD rather than recreating this site from scratch in a few months. We keep sites for those events and persons in history who receive less than 9,000,000 hits of interest in three days. This seems the definition of some notoriety. I first watched her on FoxNews. She has also been on MSNBC (news outlet and internet sites), CNN, NBC, and ABC. She is already denoted on the website of the little town and in other places from the London Times, Kansas City Star, Undercover Music News, and 2,390,000 fan sites that have sprung up since 04/11/09 on this woman as of today 04/15/09. Editors have been busy. For reference, United States President Woodrow Wilson has had 4,530,000 sites denoting him and he has been dead fifty years before the internet began.

The idea that the merger and deletion votes would over-rule these reasons for keeping this article is inappropriate. Keep votes during this small time period demonstrate that this is not an non-controversial deletion, so proposed deletion process rules need not apply. Those who propose a merger could list it there, however, the cut and paste repairs would be more time consuming.

These articles referencing her from her city to Cowell or BGT to her own page are not written in the same language. Their articles do not cover the same information. The one on her is a better collection of her personally. The page does not need a redirect. The articles appear tagged appropriately. The articles do not appear to have copyright violations. It is not patent nonsense, rather historiography in nature. This does not appear to be a sandbox test run. It is blatantly not vandalism, recreated from deleted material, or by banned users. There appears to be no technical deletions needed and none of it appears to be dependent on a non-existent page or deleted page. So why kill her dream?slm1202000 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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.


Rootology's talk page post 1-

re: AfD

[edit]

Hi Rootology. Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle, I just wanted to take a moment to say I appreciate you taking the time to state the reasoning behind your closure. I think if more admins took the time to state a clear reason behind the decisions that were made, we'd have a lot less fuss and entries at WP:DRV. Job well done. (perhaps I'm making an incorrect assumption that it won't be re-opened, but one can only hope) ;) — Ched :  ?  05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If it DRVs, it DRVs... rootology (C)(T) 05:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Rootology's talk page post 2-

Susan Boyle close

[edit]

You're three days early, not one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I closed at 05:07, April 16, 2009, it opened at 12:11, April 12, 2009. But apples and oranges, I suppose... :) rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Right. AfDs run for 7 days now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that in three days, the "slow news day" stories will have moved on to something else, and this woman will largely have been forgotten. The AfD could have changed quite a bit had it been allowed to run its full length. - Brian Kendig (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
And I believe otherwise. Why is your crystal ball any better than mine? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not, but now we'll never know, because policy wasn't followed. - Brian Kendig (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You can always nominate for deletion at a later time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Single AFDs nor single DRVs are ever binding in any sense of the word and can be trivially overturned with another later. "Policy" doesn't hard-require 7 days, nor did it "hard-require" 5 days before for duration. Even since I've closed, I see 2 more sources have been added, and it hasn't been DRV'd, so it seems my extrapolation so far has been thankfully right. Feel free to DRV my close, of course, if you think I was wrong. rootology (C)(T) 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor closure, simplistic even. I guess 85% does sound impressive when you don't bother with any weighting at all. In a situation where bean counting was obviously innappropriate due to the amount of ill informed newcomer pile ons, why even mention it? Did you exclude anybody from that figure? You didn't even address the elephant in the room - a good number of the keepers you are saying with this closure have won the day with their weighty and considered policy based reasoning, demonstrated they actually have no idea what the presumption of notability is, or how it relates to 1E and current events, because they are under the utterly wrong impression that deleting the article in 6 months if the 'fuss has died down' is actually something we do around here. Point me to a single policy that says that. I can at least respectfully disagree with people who think this woman has achieved lasting notability, but how can ideas like this be openly tolerated? Stating that she is not a private person, and that she is in the next audition, and that she might actually sell an album, were utterly irrelevant to this debate, I am at a loss as to why you mention these and not that. Also, there was a complete disregard for the merge/redirect opinions. As for closing it early after early closure was hotly opposed multiple times, that speaks for itself as just not necessary. Anyway, a good read for next time is the essay section Benefits of recentist articles. When you read that, and read this article, it just makles you want to die inside. MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mick, if that makes you die inside, I don't think leaving it open three more days would have helped. :-) This isn't the Star Wars kid, who did one thing and wished he hadn't -- this is someone who dared to grab at her dream, succeeded, and is running with it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll concede that when a deletionist doesn't get his way, he dies a little bit. It's like depriving him of food. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Root, I thought I was going to blast you when I came here, but MacNee is scorching you more than even I would. Keeping the article is not a terrible decision, because consensus does enter into these things, but you're all wet on the reasoning, in my arrogant opinion. The "event" in WP:BLP1E should be considered broadly, encompassing related appearances on the same show that essentially are the same experience and depend on her initial appearance (the "event" is really "her appearances on the show" because all the coverage will treat it as essentially the same thing). The strongest Keep argument, it seems to me, is a bit common-sensical: existence of articles that talk about her life as a whole. With enough of those kind of profile pieces, it's hard for the Delete side to say there's not enough detailed sourcing covering this subject as a whole, which is the point of WP:BLP1E. You are right about expecting more coverage in a case like this, which is another common-sense point, and common sense is supposed to enter into this. So you're really not all wet, although it was fun to say. -- Noroton (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Read below. I'm one of the far more rigid people on BLP generally, so I really don't think BLP1E counts here. Read below... rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
First off, BLP is not a factor here in any level, to just clear that, and I'll explain why BLP1E is a false argument here. And again, feel free to DRV it. I fundamentally agreed more with the collective weight and opinions from the Keepers being more in line with our history, precedents, and principles, and ideas like this should be openly tolerated, since the presumption that "Internet notability" (what does that even mean?) is "less important" than "real world" notability--that's really what you and many Deleters here are arguing, no matter how it's dressed up--are naive attitudes.
The Internet IS the real world at this point, for better or worse, no matter how hard or vigorously some people like to poo poo the entire web 2.0 thing. It's nothing to do with our needlessly rigid, increasingly irrelevant--each month, it fades in social value as an internal concept--"Recentism" ideas. The press is faster now since it doesn't rely on the permanence of physical media to deliver news. Recentism because of this is a wholly subjective thing, with too many people valuing "physical" news in some vague way over "transient" news, with "transient" being the Internet. Again, what does that even mean? It's a nonsense argument. A well-maintained bit of data that is properly preserved in an open format will last theoretically forever. A newspaper will eventually rot away and crumble. But you see where this is all going?
It boils down to Deletionists vs. Inclusionists, and the foolish idea that an AFD or DRV is binding forever. I closed the AFD as I saw where it was heading, and where it had gone per policy. Consensus clearly supported Keeping already; I agreed that the Keepers had won the arguments and day--and not just by numbers, Wikidemon, Ched, the first few sentences by Stude62 (painfully true, AGF aside), Raven1977, and J Van Meter. BLP1E is absolutely a false argument here as Iakeb points out: her performance; the significance and separate reporting on her unique YouTube popularity after, and since then we have her being signed to a record label and when (in a week?) she performs again we'll have even more events/details. Each passing day there were more and more sources about Boyle visible online and in searches, so presumably as well in "old world" media like physical newspapers, of course. I closed based on what has come before, the opinions expressed, my interpretation of policy, the sourcing there (and growing--23 refs today, 21 when I closed), and the fact that 1) she's not a BLP1E, she's a BLP4E now unless she drops dead before her appearances on the actual show contests, and 2) every single time one of these social culture articles like hers gets AFD'd, if the person isn't really a BLP1E--like hers, they are virtual always a better article later as the sourcing really does not stop.
Many people like to AFD quick, hard, and fast, in the presumption that it will keep something "out" of WP longer. Nonsense--DRV is too smart to allow gaming like that in any pointless Deletionist vs Inclusionist content race. If something isn't a one-off or Deep Fancrust, sourcing will always build over time--it's inevitable, like the tides themselves. And like the tides themselves, the consensus backed by policy was pretty darn clear on the Boyle AFD: keep. Deleting Boyle today would also, in my personal opinion, be a completely pointless strategic move of no benefit to anyone. The day after her next appearance on the show, or the minute the media comes out with the information on the forthcoming album, it would sail through DRV so fast that people's heads would spin. Why nuke the article for a week (or two) then? It would be a pointless procedural exercise that would lead to rules-jockey admins fighting people trying to recreate it for the 10-14 days, and pointless things like ANI alerts. As for your wording of it being a poor close, thanks. But it's not poor because you disagree with it's outcome. rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Consider this my expanded close reasoning which I'm adding to the AFD now. rootology (C)(T) 13:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The difference between new and old media is irrelevant, nobody challenged the fact she has already passed the presumption of notability in old media. An online version ofthe Guradian is still the Guardian, the TV news is definitely old media. The idea that because another news story will appear next week, about the same thing, makes this any more noteworthy, is boohockey. I don't want the article gone for a week, I want it gone per policy, not per Afd accepted bad practice, until it is demonstrated that she is notable by our definition (not famous) for more than one thing, and that biographical info becomes demonstrably not news puffery and meaningless backstory, the sort of which you find in any trash magazine every single day (e.g. details given because she does actually win, or she does actually become a recording artist, or she does actually get the congressional medal of honour for changing the perceptions of society). The fact the article has to spell out why she is notable should clue you in that maybe she isn't really all that notable for Wikipedia - that sort of desperate self justification has no place in article prose. Transient puffery is transient puffery, no matter if it appears in one article or eight hundred. This is what the presumption part of the notability criteria means, simply source counting is not the bar of inclusion. Another issue with the close is that you seem to have bought into the idea that was wrongly pushed that deletion really does mean that this woman gets no mention at all on Wikipedia. Quite obviously that ignores the possibility of coverage in the show article, with the proper weight. Appearance on a show + media attention + possible music career = 1 Event. Period. 1E is not simply about protection of people, it is also about not giving undue weight to people known for one thing. This woman is no presidential assassin, she is no hero pilot, waving that away because this is 'pop culture' and that is a misunderstood aspect of web culture, is simply not going to fly, and is patronising in the extreme. If the basic policy definition of an 'event' for the purposes of interpreting "passes/fails BLP1E" is the issue here and why the deletes were discounted, then I definitely think DRV is in order. If an Afd on this article in 6 months time actually succeeded, then obviously something is not being done right, either now or then. Notability is not temporary, and demonstrating notability is not the only bar to inclusion. These are core ideas, you would expect their application to be consistent by now, not flip flop from Afd to Afd in the space of months, certainly not when it is the same article being debated. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Just one last point, on your sentence, "These are core ideas, you would expect their application to be consistent by now, not flip flop from Afd to Afd in the space of months, certainly not when it is the same article being debated." That simple point is: consensus can change. Articles that were shit for years are gone now in other cases, and articles inappropriately nuked in part for various pointless internal political reasons of the past are back now. If the community supports your views, consensus will change, DRV will reverse me, and this will fail at AFD #2. Or, DRV will say I was right, and you might see AFD #2 six or twelve months from now result in Boyle's deletion. Wikipedia is not about getting your way, or your way in interpretations of things we do, "today". That sort of mindset is the fundamentally wrong way to approach things, and I advise anyone who thinks that way to clear such ideas. We're not here to win, we're here to keep growing the encyclopedia with quality content. DRV today, or next week, or next month, AFD in 6 or 12 months. If the community goes against my close later, then I was wrong. If this is a Good or Featured Article later, I was right. It is what it is. rootology (C)(T) 15:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion is continuing on your Talk page is evidence that the AfD was closed too soon. And I'd like to remind all present that an alternative to "keep" or "delete" is "merge with Britain's Got Talent (series 3) and redirect." I don't see anyone saying in the AfD that this woman is noteworthy for anything outside her appearance on one episode (and likely, a few more episodes) of "Britain's Got Talent." Perhaps your crystal ball shows her having a noteworthy recording career, but that hasn't happened yet. The strongest argument right now for her having her own article is that lots of people are talking about her around the water cooler this morning and they really really like her. - Brian Kendig (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a fundamental disconnect here between how people view notability and consensus, and how it applies to AFD. To say the AFD was wrong because discussion continues here is a fictional argument vs. the AFD itself, as you're both clearly in favor of deletion, while the majority of users that weighed in (135 or so) disagree. Only the minority that wanted it gone are continuing discussion. ;) If you all want to DRV, please go ahead, it's the natural course of things. I am disinclined to reverse my decision at this time. rootology (C)(T) 15:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I suppose it's pointless to try to explain any perceptions, viewpoints, or reasoning to those who are so steadfastly determined that this woman is not notable and doesn't deserve to have a BLP here. And I'm not calling out any individual editor, I'm just asking for a moment of Root's and all his visitor's time here. Even if we throw out the IAR, there are still enough points to cover the inclusion of this lady. If it were simply a matter of a great performance - sure, merge to the show's article. When you take the whole picture into perspective however, it becomes a bit more of a keeper. It's not just the performance, the ability to shock the judges, the huge impact on YouTube, or the media frenzy that followed. It's about perception on a global scale. The sheer numbers of people who were reminded of the old adage "Don't judge a book by it's cover" has an intangible factor here. Looking at the new editors who signed up at Wikipedia just to contribute to the discussion alone is enough to convince me that keeping the article is the right move. Perhaps many of the "keep" votes were not the most clueful reasoning in regard to our policy - but the intent and the effort alone speaks volumes. I suppose that there are a few editors who may bide their time, and try to push this through another AfD as some later date; all the sadder I'd think. If you try to stick so close to the letter of the law, that you've got your nose buried up against the individual words, you lose perspective of the intent of the guidelines that we've so carefully put into place. We're not sending people to jail here, or deciding on some monumental earth-shattering changes. We're trying to build an encyclopedia that contains the sum of human knowledge - something for future generations to look back on, and to learn from. If it doesn't exist, they don't learn a thing. I apologize for my ramblings, but these were things I felt I needed to say - discard at your whim. — Ched :  ?  15:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think your decision was the only sensible one, we have BLP policies to protect unwilling public figures from privacy violations and prevent people using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Arguments over how the exact wording of these policies applies to this case miss the vital point that this is not what the policies were written for. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I voted delete but it was obvious that the article was going be kept. DRV would be a lost cause as it would be a repeat with even fewer deletionists (I am sure). But I just wanted to remind you that you kept a biography for a person who spent no more than 8 minutes on the screen, and that less than eight minute clip is the only thing she is famous for. Therefore, it is a one event case, and that was enough reason to delete the article. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to say a bit more about why I think an early close was a good idea. Wikipedia, as "the encyclopedia that anybody can edit", depends a great deal on how the public perceives it. When you combine a very high-profile article about which people have strong emotions, with actions that the great majority of the public see as bizarre, it harms Wikipedia significantly in the eyes of the people whose good-will we depend on. If the article on such a famous person is up for deletion, who is going to dare to try to create an article? With certainly well over 100,000 article-views by the time the AfD would run out -- over 1,000,000 if the current exponential growth trend continues -- the factors of intimidation and loss of good-will add up. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
An excellent point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the masses. People come here looking for information and they couldn't care less about our pedantic rules. If they don't find it, they'll think wikipedia is out of touch.
FIRST RULE: DON'T MAKE WIKIPEDIA LOOK STUPID.
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"Such a famous person"? I must have been asleep in that history class back in college. Wikipedia is not a catalog of the current Youtube-sensation-of-the-week. Please stop appealing to emotional arguments and instead back up your reasoning with Wikipedia guidelines, which have been honed against thousands of cases like this one. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You can always post it for deletion at a later date. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"Assume notability; delete later if not" is not a Wikipedia guideline. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
And a guideline is not a rule. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I think this close was totally in line and if I had the cajones I would have done the same. Putting aside the fallacious BLP1E argument for a second (there is no obvious "one event" and even if there was one event can generate permanent notability in some cases), sometimes it's as if people forget why we're here. What does the encyclopedia gain from deleting a well-sourced, informational article about an individual who is notable, at least for now, and generating tens of thousands of page views per day? Does keeping a big ugly AfD tag on top of a page that's generating this much traffic when the AfD is a foregone conclusion make the encyclopedia better? Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Who's still talking about deleting it? I would like to see it merged. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You could propose that it be merged. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll do that. I don't know why it didn't occur to me sooner. Thank you for the idea! - Brian Kendig (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That was your idea. I merely restated it back to you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm reminded here a bit of the second AFD for Chris Crocker, in 2007, and this version of the article, when it was AFD'd, compared to this version here when the AFD closed. It went from a handful of sources to 40, all ensconsed in the BLP1E fears. Now look at it today--over 100 sources and only a halfwit would reasonably argue for deletion. rootology (C)(T) 17:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Or a deletionist. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Or dream killer.Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break ...

[edit]

(... since Root seems to be more popular than either Jimbo or ANI today). Sometimes I think these people so firmly entrenched in "XfD" are so caught up in the letters and words of our guidelines, that they've lost touch with the intent to build an encyclopedia. I'll avoid all the "D" words, but even Al Gore knew when to give up ... well, sort of. ;) — Ched :  ?  18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, Root. I argued delete, but I perfectly understand why others voted keep, and why it might close as keep. However, leaving a pompous closing message that suggests we're all "Web 2.0 haters" and substituting your own opinion for an even evaluation of opinions presented is a right poor idea. The expanded soliloquy just made it more obvious. Way to create way more drama than was necessary... I would have expected a bit better. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't (and re-reading it, I don't see it that way) smashing of "web 2.0 haters", but as an expanded explanation of my entire thought process on the close that I did last night based on reading the entire AFD and the views presented on it.
The first paragraph is why the close should have been a Keep in line with collective consensus of the AFD, and with the previous decisions I've read on similar AFDs. The second paragraph was an evaluation of the AFD as I read it based on the opinions expressed in the AFD by some that her notability may have been transient, or "internet" driven, and why in the pure face of notability it doesn't matter where or how the notabilit is generated--WP:N and it's sub pages don't say x notability via it's origination source is ever more or less valued. The third paragraph was aimed at the feedback here that I'd somehow "closed a door" on the entire process of the article, which I found plain nonsensical, as consensus can change. The third also went on to the specific people that swayed me the most, and why I rejected BLP1E as an argument here--I'm one of the bigger supporters of BLP, and so for me to brush aside BLP concerns as a deletion reason here I hope have some value in my interpretation of that consensus. The third went on into how the sourcing has increased each day of the AFD, and not just sourcing that's actually included in the article, but that could be.
On a borderline or perceived borderline close, the closer has to evaluate sourcing in that way. My point there was also based on precedent, and the Chris Crocker situation is a great example. The sourcing always gets better over time--a merge today would need to be undone tomorrow as she got too big for the parent article on the show. We've seen it time and time again; so precedent carries there. The last paragraph is basically why I disagreed with the consensus of some users for a merge, and how it would generate needless cycles of work. Was my language perhaps a bit overly firm? Probably, but I've never been good at political delicateness. It's a wasted art on me, and I think we spend far too much time dancing around sometimes instead of just getting to the point.
Or maybe I should have just said "Keep", let it get DRV'd, and start up another round more easily... :( rootology (C)(T) 03:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what advantage you feel closing early has done here. Better not to have invited drama by closing early a case that is generating such interest. It might be worth considering undoing your close and just letting the AfD run the full seven days. The outcome is almost certainly going to be the same, but done without the quibbling and nit-picking. Regards SilkTork *YES! 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC) And, just for the record, I feel that notability has been well established in the article, and Susan Boyle should be kept. It's just the process of allowing people to have their say fairly that is in question here. SilkTork *YES! 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure 1E was ever exceeded, but only time will tell if she fizzles out (and I will agree consensus, discounting all the crap votes, was probably for keeping in some respect). I think at this point reopening it again will only create more drama. Either way, Root, you should have realized that closing it early was a Bad Idea. What was wrong in letting more comments in (especially after they were likely to support keeping). As to your expanded closing, you still talked about your opinion more than the AfD--I don't care one bit about how much you love BLP in any other respect, if you didn't comment in the AfD your personal relations with the policy are not german. This is on top of the seeming misunderstanding of "AfD is not a vote"; keep/delete percentages (especially when you are apparently counting comments like "she's an inspiration") are irrelevant. You throw out google news hits like that's an actual viable rubric for keeping an article (nevermind the fact that they must be nontrivial and reliable, I see a lot of ghits, must be notable). As to precedent, last time I checked no one in the AfD brought up Chris Crocker. As you state yourself, consensus can change, so applying "precedent" to an unrelated AfD is, once again, a Bad Idea. Please read this again, as I'm not sure it sunk in the first time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, thank you for all the feedback.

I strongly disagree that I somehow--I get the feeling this is implied in a vague way in some of these comments, even if you didn't actually intend it--that I somehow closed this almost as a voter based on my personal views, I did not. I closed the AFD based on my reading of the AFD itself, and the consensus there, and my interpretation of the policies involved and the opinions presented. I reject utterly any suggestion that the number of comments from the number of users plays no role in a discussion's consensus, and I will reject that till the I die as a user on this site. The arguments matter, but just as well do the number of opinions presented by the number of users. "Not a vote" is "not a policy", and I reject it. If 200 people support something, but 10 oppose, the weight of the 200 by volume must be considered. Abstractly vague precepts of the 'wikiway' semi-influenced by fringe ideologies like objectivism, circa 2002, are not binding on us and never were. Everything changes over time, and in this way, for the better as it decentralizes the power of the discussions and places it back in the community realm and common sense, rather than whomever can throw the most political power or written heat. I decided the AFD based on the overall consensus of the AFD, and if I was wordy or flowery in the interpretation, that's just how I am. I'll explain why I see something to the most painful level of detail, and given how some admins historically do literally the opposite, I figured that would be a good thing. You know exactly what you get from me, and are likely to get from me, and always have.

And one final point, the idea of new decisions not being influenced by modern precedent I utterly, absolutely, completely, and 100% reject as bogus. That's exactly what we are supposed to do. Precedent became practice became policy. Are people unhappy with my close being influenced at all by previous precedent on such AFDs? That's how policy works. That's just how we roll.

If you'd like a simpler explanation of how I looked at it, then here's a formula. In the AFD, consensus is c; weight of arguments that actually invoke policy or interpret is w; previous practices on similar cases is p; the closer's read of the sourcing and it's actual adherence to V, RS, and N is r; any possible BLP factors are b; number/volumes/!votes is v; and finally the closer's own interpretation of policy as it relates to AFD is m:

c+w+p+r+(b*2)+(v*0.5)/m=AFD close.

As for closing a bit early, Silk, yes, it could have probably gone a couple days more... but the consensus with each passing day was going to swing even more into the Keep side as it had been. In truth, there was only (I believe 20~ odd Deletes) and nearly all the Keeps came later on by volume and the "metrics" of it all. It would have been "nice" for everyone else to get to say something, but AFD isn't a Board or Arbcom election, or site wide discussion. When it's served it's purpose and the consensus is solidly locked in, any admin should be able to close one. I love process--I really do, since good process often keeps bad or nasty little fingers out of any theoretical abuse, if people hew to and closely monitor the good processes--but process for the sake of process is just a waste of everyone's time.

And finally, I'm still disinclined to reopen or change my close, and I really can't think of what else to say about it at this point. I believe wholly that my close was 100% in line with the policy arguments and clear consensus by argument and volume in the AFD discussion. I'd be happy for someone to DRV it, if they disagree and have a solid policy-based reason, but I note it still has not been. Thank you, all. rootology (C)(T) 14:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus". So in other words you put the reasonable comments based in guidelines and policy behind such comments as "She has already touched thousands, and the ball is rolling, even if she by some fluke shouldn't win there will be records and concerts in her future, the word is already spreading like wildfire across twitter,facebook, email and even word of mouth on the street. Today the UK, tomorrow the world." Nice to know you're willing to disregard the entire concept of consensus; as the policy page states, "Consensus is not in numbers". The issue here isn't Susan Boyle, it's your hasty close which makes me lose all faith in your conduct. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice to know you're cherry picking in bad faith now, which for you of all people to be doing disappoints me terribly. Why would you quote IceHunter from that AFD, and imply that I simply counted votes? If you choose to lie and misrepresent everything I've written utterly out of context, you're welcome to not post to my talk page again. I have zero tolerance or patience for political games or political point scoring. I explicitly said the number of users weighing in must be considered, but I explicitly said as well that it's one small part of the consideration; anyone willing to use both hemispheres of their mind can see that this is the case. If that's a political unpopular thing to say as it rains on our precocious wikiways of old, that's a shame. It's the truth. If you're really this unhappy with my close, please take it to DRV, as I will remove without comment anything else I perceive as bad faith from this page. rootology (C)(T) 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
How am I cherry-picking in bad faith? I grabbed a support not based on any policy or guideline at random; according to your own words above, that kind of support influenced your decision even when the deletion guide exhorts us to not consider any sort of argument like that. It's not enough that it was a "small part" of your consideration; it's not supposed to be a consideration at all. We aren't a majority vote for good reasons. If the fact that I am calling attention to your selective reading of the consensus is troubling to you, remove it. I'm not trying to take this to DRV as that accomplishes nothing; the issue here is your conduct. You refuse to accept that closing an AfD early, when it was clear that was not a supported action, was a bad idea, and that considering bad arguments in your close was a bad idea. This has nothing to do with politics, this has everything to do with misuse of tools and bad judgement. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Both of you need to take a deep breath at this point, and dial down on the emotionality. Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Misuse of tools and bad judgement? Please sir - as Looie496 says, let's dial it down a notch. The public, the people who make this site what it is, have clearly voiced a desire to have this article. When you start picking at the foundation of our domain by using words and letters to undermine the potential of Wikipedia, you're essentially tying our hands an cutting off our legs. Root got it right, I'm sorry to disagree with your premise, but to be blunt - you're missing the "big picture". Please, let's put this behind us and move on to a more constructive task of building the world's best repository of knowledge. — Ched :  ?  20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC) By the way, referring to a new editor's, or any editor's, contributions as "crap votes" is hardly what I'd expect from an administrator! — Ched :  ?  20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Rather than continue to make disruptive accusations I strongly suggest you just let this topic die its death. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
And rather than stick your pithy comments into a discussion between Root and me, I suggest you ignore it if such talk bothers you. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you need to be reminded to be civil Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If you don't like it, don't respond. And I hope you were trying to say "do" instead of don't. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

←@Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: David, first let me say that I appreciate your valuable contributions over 3+ years here. Anyone who would not take those efforts into account in a discussion would be naive. Also, I'd like to say that if my comments about what I expect in an administrator came across as snarky ... then I do apologize. I noticed that you've put the best interests of Wikipedia above your own beliefs in endorsing closure at the DRV. My compliments to you sir - truly admirable! While it's common to see editors disagree about various aspects of Wikipedia, it's an eye-opening experience to see editors come together in collaboration to benefit the project. I tip my hat to you with all due respect sir! Good Form! — Ched :  ?  23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to sugarcoat your comments, Ched, just be plain! While I disagree with Root's judgement in this matter, the AfD was pretty much plain, garbage votes or no... opening a DRV doesn't help solve anything 'sides generate more discussion than needed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
ummm .. OK... then flat out? .. You were wrong this time around - big time. But I still respect your efforts. ;) — Ched :  ?  23:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter Symond's talk page-

Susan Boyle

[edit]

I'm kind of perturbed that after I reopened giving clear reasons why I was doing so, you came along and closed it again, ignoring what I had said.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ignore what you said, but it came to a point of WP:SNOW. There was really no further need to keep it open. If you want to reopen it, go ahead, but it seemed highly unnecessary to keep it open any longer. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
As I noted in my reopen, WP:SNOW is not supposed to be used anymore.
Concerns were raised during the discussion about existing early closing, especially SNOW closes. AfD guidelines should now be rewritten to incorporate the decisions in this discussion, and to direct people to allow AfD discussions to go the full seven days unless there is a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to close early.
Hence my previous changes. Since you don't object, I will reopen again. I know it's POINTy, but it's a recent change that needs to have attention called to it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That is your call, but I find it alarming that such a rule has been put in place. Quite disappointing really. Anyway, thanks for the links; I'll bear that in mind. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not WP:SNOW can be used, WP:IAR could still be cited, as it's an official policy. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
From having a quick look at the link discussion, it appears that there is no hard and fast rule that SNOW cant be used, just that it is discouraged. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but there's no point in making a change if it's going to be completely ignored, right? Besides, the BLP1E argument isn't invalid. This should go the full length to properly establish consensus.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, for a start its an inappropriate change that goes completely against common sense. Taking the common sense argument further, its common sense that this AfD was closed, it is a classic case of SNOW. Right now you are creating admin for admins sake. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll obviously go along with the 5-7 day change, but I think it was kind of a stretch to pull that "NO SNOW" thing into that close (the AfD discussion on 5-7 days) at the very end of the discussion. — Ched :  ?  17:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
IMO WP:SNOW is pointless in AfDs. It's been misused too much, like in the Susan Boyle thing. An AfD is not an RfA, where % of support votes counts. 20 people might cite a wrong policy, and 5 people may cite the correct one, and it would be closed due to WP:SNOW. Not fair. Antivenin 00:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

<* cough, cough *>, ahhh .. yea. I think I'm probably the guilty party on this one folks. I ran across the AfD here while checking through the Help Desk. I then mentioned the issue to Peter in IRC. At the time it looked like a clear SNOW issue, and to be even more frank, I also thought it was a forumshopping issue as well (probably an unfair assumption on my part). So ... all cards on the table, I'm most likely the one that everyone should be looking at if there's a finger of blame to be pointed here. I'll just go ahead an pick up my trout on the way out ;) — Ched :  ?  05:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't agree with that. The AfD crowd are generally a sensible and clueful bunch, who have a strong knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies. They read the article and come up with a decision. Granted it could happen, but no, it would be highly unlikely for 20 people to cite the wrong policy. Now, that excludes cases of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and any off-site canvassing, but from every AfD I have seen, this is obviously not given undue weight in the closing decision. So I believe your concerns about an unfair vote are unfounded. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well it happened with the Susan Boyle thing. That's all I'm saying. A non-admin closed it citing WP:SNOW without addressing the concerns raised by those who wanted it deleted. Antivenin 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Posted at Deletion Review (WP:DRV)-

Susan Boyle (closed)

[edit]

AN/I post 1-

AfD for Susan Boyle‎

[edit]
Resolved
 – AfD cannot be snowed at this time because people are still !voting to delete. Oren0 (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether some admin might consider closing WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle as a snow keep. The article got over 3000 hits on its first day of existence, and the AfD doesn't serve any purpose except to create drama. I'm not quite bold enough to do a non-admin close. Looie496 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, definitely not snow keep, but I just voted keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd really like to close this, but given that an established editor just recently !voted to delete based on BLP1E (which really doesn't apply here IMO, but I digress), a snow closure would be inappropriate. Oren0 (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, in the next 6 days 20000 people will read the article and see the AfD template, and 1000 of them will go to the delete page to cast angry Keep votes -- but so be it, that's Wikipedia! Looie496 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
In theory we're not a bureaucracy and it seems very unlikely the page will be deleted. But throwing around WP:IAR to close a deletion discussion tends to piss people off. Maybe in another day or so if there really are a flood of keeps then it can be snow closed. Oren0 (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AN/I post 2-

WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle again

[edit]
Resolved

Closing discussion, AFD is closed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay, with the !voting at 26 keep vs 5 delete, and the last 11 all keeps (mostly in tones of incredulity that it is up for deletion), I am shortly going to do a non-admin snow close unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done as proposed (now at 31-to-5, by the way). Since this is the first time I have closed an AfD, it wouldn't do any harm if somebody would verify that I've dotted all the i's properly. Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Its usually best to note you did a non-admin close in the closing statement, and that you closed as keep per WP:SNOW rather than just keep. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added that info.Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You shouldn't close an AfD discussion in which you have commented, particularly 'snow keep'! Leave it someone uninvolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
All right, I won't do such a thing again. I did at least state quite clearly here that I was going to do it unless anybody objected, and nobody did. Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Especially when the majority of the early keep votes were based upon YouTube pageviews, which aren't in line with policy. AFD isn't a vote so 31-5 is meaningless and an inappropriate metric, especially for a snow discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree that it would have been better if someone uninvolved had closed it, it looked decidedly like a ski resort. Whether it's a merge if necessary (IMO it isn't) or just a straight redirect, the one outcome that wasn't going to happen was deletion. Someoneanother 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD reopened per discussion at the Village pump and the Help desk. D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Per village pump and help desk? Oh brother. There's a certain irony to complaining that a non-admin close is out of process, then re-opening based on a few comments in those two forums. Closures should not be reverted lightly. That becomes a process problem as well. Wikidemon (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, it's open yet again. Time well-spent. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I re-opened it because of the recent change to extend all AfDs to 7 days, and only close sooner for WP:Speedy keep and WP:CSD scenarios. If we don't insist on it now, it'll never get done properly. (Note that I did !vote to keep, I'm not trying to get the result to change.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
...and User:PeterSymonds ignored my reopen reason and closed it again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That article will be deleted or merged within six weeks so I wouldn't worry. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it/hope not. :-) In any case, PeterSymonds agreed to let me re-open. Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It was a silly and wholly inappropriate action to reopen that AfD, has common sense been excluded from Wikipedia these days? Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Not at all. There's a valid question as to whether BLP1E applies or not. The only way to determine the answer is to let it run the full length so that people can weigh in. I don't think it does, but I'm not going to assume that my opinion is the correct one. See the discussions about the Snowball clause during the recent AfD change discussions for why I'm doing this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oi, I'm getting dizzy here. Who's going to stop this crazy wheel. But all in all, what is the harm in letting the discussion run the full 7 days, especially since there are editors disputing the early close after less then 48 hours? --Farix (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Especially since the most recent response was a 1E-based strong delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Groan. I apologize for creating drama when my intent was to reduce it. Probably if I hadn't closed the debate some admin would have by now, and we wouldn't be in the ridiculous position of having a deletion template on an article that has had 23,000 views in the past day. Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit of advice for future occasions: when you leave a note stating you'll do X "unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it", wait far longer than an hour -- especially if it involves a speedy keep/delete. At the worst, someone will get to enjoy having egg on her/his face. :) -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside admin intervention needed

[edit]

I've just withdrew my nomination to have it deleted, as consensus is clearly merged, only now it appears to be turning into a lame edit-war. Looking since the start of the debate:

  1. Closed @ 23:44, 13 April 2009, reopened @ 12:19, 14 April 2009.
  2. Closed @ 13:26, 14 April 2009, reopened @ 14:46, 14 April 2009
  3. Closed @ 16:21, 14 April 2009, reopened @ 16:39, 14 April 2009
  4. I withdrew the nomination at 13:06, 15 April 2009, as consensus was clearly emerging (although this was called inappropriate by MickMacNee (talk · contribs)
  5. Closed @ 14:52, 15 April 2009, reopened @ 14:56, 15 April 2009
  6. Closed @ 15:07, 15 April 2009, reopened @ 15:26, 15 April 2009

I think we need an uninvolved admin to step in (and when it does get closed properly to fully-protect the page to avoid someone reopening it). D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  • When you discount the IP votes, and the keeps from brand new users who have not given a policy based argument, then the argument is pretty even. But that is beside the point, because withdrawing after that many votes and three days, when it is clearly not a case of SNOW, is simply innappropriate. If you are confident in the apparent consensus, where is the harm in leaving it open for the full term? MickMacNee (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In addition, when I previously enquired about a nom withdrawing a nomination, the consensus was that if the debate is well underway, it belong to the community and the withdrawal is *not* a reason for closing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • At this point, it's probably be best to let the AfD run its full course even if it's pointless and forget about it. From WP:SNOW: "the snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start". Now WP:SNOW was rejected, however, we still do not need to get tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic meta discussions about it all. Equendil Talk 16:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • With all do respect, it is an obvious keep and the re-opens look like a WP:POINT violation. Can anyone in their right mind imagine closing this as a delete without a lot of wikidrama? Further, although the "delete" opinion is respectable (albeit in my opinion a misunderstanding of policy), the claim that delete wins because it has the better argument and everyone who thinks otherwise does not count is basically a rejection of the consensus approach. Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks to me like a case of "the merges have it", prolonging the debate is unnecessary so anyone (including the nominator) could perform a non-admin close as no consensus and then either boldly merge or start a merge debate. WP:BLP1E supports merge, but that's a content issue as this is a likely search term. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I know it looks like I'm making a POINT, but as the guidelines for AfD closing just changed, I think this is an appropriate time to insist on the full AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks that way yes. Just because the guideline has changed, its stupid to ignore common sense! This is just disruptive. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it's disruptive to keep closing a non-unanimous discussion in the face of guidelines specifically saying not to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle seems to have plenty more keeps than deletes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If I had to close the AfD now, I would do so as no consensus to delete. Setting aside the keep arguments based not on policy but on popularity / public interest, several contributors believe that the coverage in multiple reliable sources is a demonstration of notability. However, there is no pressing need to close the AfD now. It seems to me that the most likely result of prolonging the discussion will be the writing, publishing and discovery of more source material, thus reinforcing the case for a Keep result. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that many editors will offer their opinions that this is a BLP1E case and as such not encyclopaedic material, regardless of the amount of media coverage. Perhaps that will be sufficient to constitute a consensus to Delete; perhaps not. Rather than attempt to predict the outcome, I support keeping the AfD open, in line with policy. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

[edit]
All AfD discussions run for at least seven days. However, a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies.

What part of "all" is unclear here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the section you're quoting basically says, "AfDs should run for 7 days unless they shouldn't." -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
And neither of the "shouldn't"s actually applies in this case, so let it run.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I hate it when people throw this around, but WP:IAR anyone? There is no way in hell this AfD is going to be closed as delete and it's only for reasons of process and bureaucracy that people are insisting the AfD continues. Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
And sometimes our rush to close debates causes a pile of drama, which is a common theme with these one event tv show contestants. Lacking a unanimous concensus, I would rather the debate simply ran its course. There is no harm in letting it run, but obviously there was a lot of nonsense created by closing it early. Resolute 14:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • As one of the people who has most strongly been urging the extension of time from 5 days, for years now, actually, I think nobody intended that there would not be common-sense exceptions, if necessary justified by IAR in the absence of something more specific. But this is not one of those times. When two responsible editors both urge SNOW closes, but different SNOW closes, it would seem that this is not the time to use IAR, of which SNOW is a special case. DGG (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Without revealing my position on how AfD's should be handled, that sentence is awful from a basic logic standpoint. Someone go rewrite the policy to say "AfD discussions generally run for at least 7 days. However tktktktk."Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not completely pointless

[edit]
  • Being the optimist here, the prolonged AfD is not a complete waste of time. It is giving new and previously uninvolved editors a chance to learn about policy. Spirits do seem high and very civil for such a hotly opposed deletion nomination, and supporters of the article will be very happy with a "keep" outcome or else they will get much craved melodrama with a "delete" result. The danger of course is that easy cases make bad law... if the article is kept it is not a repudiation of BLP1E, it is either an exception, or a decision that the case simply does not fit BLP1E. Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Of course, when an early close upsets people, then it was a poor choice for an early close. However, Wikipedia "rules" tend not to deal in absolutes, and an interpretation that AfDs can only be closed early by satisfying certain rigid criteria is... inaccurate. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointless and increasingly dangerous

[edit]

We now learn that she grew up with learning disabilities -- so now we have a deletion template on an article about somebody the whole world sees as a story of hope and inspiration. Our article has been doubling its readership every day, and got almost 48,000 page views yesterday. The AfD has 3 more days to run. Looie496 (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're saying that you think it's "dangerous" to keep this AfD open? Lychosis T/C 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is best if I don't explain, per WP:BEANS (maybe being paranoid). Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved now

[edit]

I closed the AFD, and just expanded my close rationale:

Feel free to DRV/throw tomatoes, etc. rootology (C)(T) 13:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aditya/Archives&oldid=1142391866"