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)[reply]

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 lead 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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Youtube does not establish notability. This has been repeated countless times. Antivenin 16:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the Times and the Telegraph combined do establish notability. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She's famous and will be more so over time. On the news tonight. Scifiintel (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for YouTube, the awards that this clip recieved already should make it notable:


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Speedy keep is NOT applicable here. There are enough people !voting for delete. Antivenin 16:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please refrain from !voting twice. Antivenin 16:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
they voted when it was a one sentence stub; read the reasoning. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, over 50,000 Ghits for Susan Boyle in the past 30 days. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This makes sense. --\/\/slack (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's a Snow keep? R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Snow. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

: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)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

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.
You said it yourself. This woman's performance That's WP:ONEEVENT right there. Antivenin 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
If it's a waste of your time, don't read the page. Simple, yes?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Anyone read WP:POINT lately? Wikidemon (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Which of the criteria at WP:Speedy keep are you suggesting are satisfied here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • April 19 I believe. — Ched :  ?  19:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm not sure performances for her cat are very notable. :0 Lychosis T/C 02:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 separate 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[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.
Category