The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Very few, if any, "votes" are policy-based, and as such I can see no clear consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Pritchard[edit]

Greg Pritchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS, also fails WP:MUSICBIO. Otterathome (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Yet another article about a Britain's Got Talent contestant who is known only because of that show. I42 (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree. --haha169 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pritchard is now well known for being a countertenor male soprano which is rare LeahBethM (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only arguments that will hold water and be effective here are sources, that document this subject in depth and that are written and published by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. So follow Colonel Warden's (first) example and cite them. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not because Pritchard is now well-known as a youtube star (3.8 million views+2.3 million views=more than 6 millions views) for singing a cantor tenor rendition of Nessun dorma, but rather because he is a rare male soprano whose multiple performances have sparked worldwide interest far beyond the intended U.K. viewing audience of BGT 2009 as mentioned in 3-party sources like this one. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't count views.--Otterathome (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not calling you a liar, but you should definitely read that more carefully. What you've linked to is only talking about page views of wikipedia. Poor wiki-lawyering is not helpful to AFD discussions. --Firefly322 (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really, it shows two sections of how using page views to show how notable something is, is useless. You failing to tackle the nomination reason at hand doesn't help AFD discussions.--Otterathome (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It took just a few seconds to find a source which comments on the YouTube success of our subject. The matter is therefore notable, just as it was in the case of Susan Boyle. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you read the article it only says how Americans can watch the show, and doesn't say anything about him being a 'YouTube success'.--Otterathome (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firefly322, I think you may have read the section headed "Pageview stats", but the link was to the section headed "Arbitrary quantity". The discussion in your rationale about the number of youtube views is almost identical to the third example shown there (but this does not counter your argument, of course, because that was explicitly presented as not the reasoning for your !vote) I42 (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substantiated by which WP criteria? The assertion is that there is no independent notability as defined by policy and you have not demonstrated otherwise. I42 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the well-established guideline of WP:N, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So where is this coverage of Greg Pritchard that is not related to Britain's Got Talent? I agree that Britain's Got Talent is notable from the coverage it has received, but no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that Greg Pritchard is independently notable. I42 (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The early life bit about Italia Conti and the bit about him working as a waiter. Spiderone (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • But those are not notable events in themselves, and the references which substantiated them are from profiles of the Britain's Got Talent contestants. So there's still no independent notability. I42 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, these details are notable by virtue of their coverage by relaible independent sources. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Without in-depth discussion by intellectually independent sources, there is nothing on which to base an encyclopedia article. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A requirement of "Intellectually independent sources"? That seems extremely unrealistic and inherently subjective, especially for a project with the wide range of user-generated content that has always been and I hope will always be more than welcome on wikipedia (if not no more donations from anime fans. :-) ). For example, should the whole category of Category:Video games based on anime and manga be AFD'd because some academics would find them to depend on sources that are reliable yet nevertheless somehow less than "intellectual"? --Firefly322 (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just mean not directly related to Pritchard. In the video game analogy, a press release from the designers would not qualify, but a review from a gaming magazine would. Here, though, the bigger problem is depth of coverage as opposed to passing mentions establishing little more than that he exists. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a poor analogy, as our issue is not whether or not the sources are primary/secondary, or whether they are "intellectual" or not (I think there is some misunderstanding about the use of that term here) but whether they concern Pritchard, or just his role in the show and the hype surrounding it. Is Pritchard a viable artist in his own right? No. He's "that guy from Britain's Got Talent with the cape". J Milburn (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're mis-reading what 2over0 is writing. Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not an "unrealistic requirement" at all. It's a sometimes, but not often, used paraphrase of our Primary Notability Criterion, and not only a realistic requirement but an oft-applied one, that we have long accepted as a criterion. The PNC requires independent sources. Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until we have any evidence of notability outside the show. Again, I loved him, but an article documenting his show career can just be linked back to the article about the show/the series/a list of contestants. As soon as he has any independent notability, it can be recreated. J Milburn (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Why is it being argued that an appearance and semi-success found on BGT are reasons to delete? Being on American Idol was never a reason to delete, at least based on the number of articles found in Category:American Idol participants. Sigh, I think there is anti-European/anti-British bias in AFD's related to BGT. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After Britain's Got Talent: After his first appearance on Britain's Got Talent, Greg Pritchard was signed up to perform at the official party to tee-off the Welsh Golf Open in June 2009. The glitzy bash takes place at the Celtic Manor Resort in Newport, South Wales — where Greg Pritchard once worked as a waiter. http://www.mmail.com.my/content/new-%E2%80%98got-talent%E2%80%99-shocker LeahBethM (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: LeahBethM (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
  • A private party? Try again. J Milburn (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a private party - it is a public function for which tickets are £195/head. Try again. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Focus! What the party is is irrelevant to this discussion. The relevant part is the source cited — via the external hyperlink in what LeahBethM wrote. Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's notable 83.70.77.209 (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's been part of a notable programme. That's different. I42 (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sigh. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Greg Pritchard is notable for being the only person that ever sang on TV (perhaps anywhere in a public performance) both the male and female parts of the song Barcelona.LeahBethM (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: LeahBethM (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
• Delete Not every person that has participated in a TV show is notable. If he remains famous then he should have an article, otherwise this is a WP:ONEVENT Passportguy (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is not obscure enough for deletion. --Da Vynci (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when has how obscure the subject is been a criteria for deletion or retention? J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obscure as in "not notable".--Da Vynci (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The subject is not not notable enough for deletion. Normally, we work the other way around. Is the subject notable enough to have an article? J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The title reads Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Pritchard, so I guess the discussion should be adhered to the topic, which is about the DELETION. As you appropriately put, the subject is not not notable for deletion. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, no. We do not have an article on every subject in the world, and delete all that we believe are not notable- we start with articles on nothing, and create those we believe are notable. Are you going to argue that the subject is notable? Basically, your argument seems to be just yet another "he's notable. I don't really care how or why, he just is". J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, u got it wrong. I am saying he is not obscure (as in not notable) enough to be deleted. --Da Vynci (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Could "u" answer my question? Do you believe that Pritchard is notable enough to be kept? I can't see where you're going with your argument. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Could "u" read the title of this article, it reads "Articles for deletion". Strictly speaking we are discussing whether or not the Pritchard is not notable for deletion. Not the other way round. --Da Vynci (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Stop it. This is a discussion of whether the article should be deleted. Playing silly word games like the above does not advance that discussion one whit. Please stick to applying policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Notability, to the article and stop playing silly word games to confuse and bait other editors. The closing administrator is within xyr rights to completely ignore a rationale that is obviously intended as tomfoolery. Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Completely agree, I'm just trying to clarify whether this "not non-notable" bullshit is actually an argument, or whether it is just a "he's just notable" assertion. Seems it's the latter, only on a slightly weaker level. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Britain's Got Talent (series 3)#Semi-finalists per WP:PRESERVE. There is no reason to delete sourced content. A paragraph in the Britain's Got Talent article is the best alternative to deletion. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even now there's over 100 Google News hits referencing this guy, many of them dedicated. -- samj _in^out 23:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What an interesting first article experience this has been. A friend and I joined here recently to edit some work-related articles. A few days later, I searched for some info on Greg Pritchard on Wikipedia since it's more helpful for popular culture than just Googling and getting a bunch of blog garbage. When I didn't find much, just a redirect page, I figured I could add the few news articles that were out there, lend a hand to the next person who came along and searched his name, and learn more about Wikipedia. Had no idea Wikipedia invested so much energy in deletion of referenced content - I guess there's a shortage of electrons. As for the work-related articles, we experienced having links to government scientific sites being deleted due to claims they were commercial websites while people's individual rants on a controversial scientific issue were kept as good content. I learned a lot about Wikipedia.Pritchardfan (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.