Talk:American Idol season 8/Archive 1

Comment
Good planning adding a season that won't be notable until January, that's a good idea. To be honest I hate the whole notability rule because many interesting things aren't notable, surely we should include much more in Wikipedia than is currently included. Series premiere (remake) (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:American Idol logo.svg
The image File:American Idol logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --10:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's Gokey
Check the semifinals list.


 * He was moved down to the list of finalists, along with Michael Sarver and Alexis Grace. They're only semifinalists until they become finalists (if that makes any sense). Hermione1980 00:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

International broadcasts section
I thought having this section is sort of "outlawed"? Remember that this article spans only America. Why include outside broadcasts when those countries don't directly have a say in the show? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 00:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, this has to be the stupidest thing ever. We regularly add international broadcasters for TV shows that air outside their intended markets. For instance, featured article Arrested Development had a list of international broadcasters at the Broadcast history section. – Howard  the   Duck  11:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hear ye hear ye
If possible, it's best to match the past couple of seasons' pages. It doesn't mean we can't make changes but consistency is good. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 12:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No entries for people picked in the audition shows. We haven't allowed that since these articles became heavily patrolled in season 5. Most of the people they feature stop being notable almost immediately. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about the "international broadcasts" section? Shouldn't that be removed as well, considering this is an America-only contest? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Good catch. :) The auditioners will be added several times before the semi-finals hit. We go through it every year. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the international broadcasts, not the auditioners. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep I know. I was just adding to my original comments. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 12:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I just add Future tvshow information template in the main article? Because it is currently airing like Survivor: Tocantins and The Amazing Race 14. ApprenticeFan (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. That's been done every other season (IIRC). Hermione1980 02:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Groups in Elimination Summary section
Can I add the groups of the each 12 of 36 semi-finalists in three weeks like the first three seFelicia Barton WikiProject Idol series some years ago that only finalists get their own Wikipedia articles (except those who had one before Idol). The names of semi-finalists are redirected back to their season, so the semi-finalist's bio in the season article is his/her Wikipedia "article", so to speak. --RBBrittain (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

While talking about the AI contestant sections, is it really necessary to label male vs. female seeing that AI is going back into open gender preliminary voting? Would save a lot of space. Plus, if people don't know if a singer is a man or woman that singer probably doesn't meet the notability standards. (Argentak (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC))


 * They are not going back to an open gender preliminary voting. In each semi-final, the top male, the top female and the top vote getter of the rest move on the finals.  We will probably have to come up with a way to note which person is which in each semi-final. Aspects (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It still could be somewhat open, however. They haven't made it clear whether the finals are required to be 6/6 gender wise. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up the lines in the chart and it was revised? why? I don't understand I made the chart look cleaner, and my reward is a revision, maybe it meets previous year's "standards" but maybe we should redo the standards to make it better, i.e. cleaner Americanedol (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Norman Gentle"
I think on Vote For The Worst and joesplace's blog they refer to him as "NORMUND" gentle. I'm just wondering which one's right? 24.6.187.230 (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

They do that as a joke because that's the way Simon pronounces it. It is Norman, that's what it says on the nameplate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.193.229 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Tatiana
The line "She has been known to create a lot of drama" seems moderately unencyclopedic to me. While she DOES seem to create a lot of drama and, to me, at least, is very unpalatable, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss it. I've removed the line.

If later someone finds a source that can verify/validate this in a more encyclopedic way, I have no problems with this being added in. Maxvip (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better way to reference this would be to cite Simon's comment that she is a "drama queen" next to Paula's cited comment? Would this be more acceptable, or should it just be left off?  Tedying (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe The judges noted she was less reserved than in past appearances and even called her a "drama queen"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.29.175 (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)



Table Inconsistancy
To me the table is inconsistant. Why are two people in this semifinal listed as eliminated and put at the bottom, and the rest are still in their spot, listed as "out"? Are the people listed as "out" going to Wildcard? There was no way of telling from tonight's show.Stjimmy61892 (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind I just looked back and it was JUST fixed.Stjimmy61892 (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there is a wildcard show, no one should be listed as Elim until that is completed. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Jason (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please correct the grammar on footnote regarding eliminated contestants. The verb returning should be changed to return. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzkreig22 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please indicate which contestant was the top vote getter of the gender and which one was top of the rest? For some reason, I can't edit as it is semiprotected. Syjytg (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe they revealed that information on the broadcast. We know that Alexis was top female, since the other two finalists (Danny and Michael) are male. However, they didn't reveal which of the two was the "top vote-getting male" and which was runner up. LoadStar (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For week 1, it was implied. Ryan said that only 20,000 votes separated Michael Sarver and Anoop Desai.  If Michael had beaten Danny Gokey, they would have highlighted the difference between Gokey and Desai.  Hence Danny Gokey was implied to be the most voted-for male and Michael Sarver was the next highest vote-getter either gender with Anoop Desai a close fourth.  Week 2 they didn't give any explicit hints.  There are non-canonical sources (e.g. dialIdol and such) that express that Adam Lambert was significantly ahead of any other male, but no verifiable source.  Tedying (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the episode is not yet broadcasted in my country, so I didn't know the info was not revealed. Syjytg (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please fix the colors so they are consistent (eg, elimination colors differ) and also it is obvious which is which? 67.189.254.228 (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-finals + top 12 NAMES
The format for season 8 is essentially the same as that of seasons 1-3. It is NOT the same as seasons 4-7, so the chart shouldn't look like 4-7. There are no places at all for the semi-finals. People were randomly put into these groups. Being eliminated in group 1 doesn't make the people in 27th through 36th places. It simply isn't setup that way this season. They are simply eliminated in group 1, 2 or 3. And because of the new/old format, they aren't "out" or totally "eliminated". In fact, it's possible for 3 people to be picked as wild cards from group 1. We won't know for 3 more weeks. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 02:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I take this opportunity to complain about the color that's being used for the "Did Not Perform" category in the table? It's very light, so it's extremely hard to tell the difference between it and the surrounding white. Is there a darker color we could use? Hermione1980 02:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I never had a problem with the color before when editing from home. When I was looking at the page at work I the "did not perform" color appeared white.  I don't know if this was something with just this computer but I keep getting confused, since it makes me think an editor removed all of them.  So I am for a color change since it might not appear on some computers.  Aspects (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a light color is the best choice for this, just not quite so light. :-) What about #DCDCDC (a light gray)? #FFEBCD is more of a tan color, so that might work too. Hermione1980 18:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Changed to #FFEBCD. Hermione1980 22:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

REGARDING THE TOP 12 FINALISTS - I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY KRIS ALLEN IS FIRST WHILE DANNY GOKEY IS LAST, THE NAMES SHOULD BE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER!!! KRIS ALLEN, DANNY GOKEY, ALEXIS GRACE, ALLISON IRAHETA, ADAM LAMBERT, THEN MICHAEL SARVER

Anoop - this is not helpful or encyclopedic
"but Simon wasn't impressed with his outfit stating "it's all a bit geeky"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.29.175 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then. Remove it. :) Never have figured out why people complain about such things instead of just removing the content. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 05:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have, if I could. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit isn't - this article, for instance is protected from editing by those of us who aren't able to sign-up for accounts. Ergo, I posted a note here for someone who is able to edit to help. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.16.207 (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Danny Gokey
Please correct his blurb it currently says he is a "church music teacher" which is wrong. Gokey is the praise and worship music director at two Faith Builders churches in Wisconsin (Beloit and Milwaukee) and he travels back and forth to Nashville where he's been recording and working on the foundation that he set up in his wife Sophia's name, Sophia's Heart Foundation. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.29.175 (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Hermione1980 18:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification question
Now that Danny, Alexis and Michael are finalists, articles can be made about them, correct? Just feels weird doing it so early. :) I was ready to revert the additions to Danny's article until I went...wait. :) He's a finalist. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 05:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Once they are finalists, yes, they generally get articles. Whether they get deleted after AI is over or not&hellip; Hermione1980 18:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wild Card Round
Has it been clearly determined how the contestants will be chosen to participate in the wild card round? Will any contestant who wasn't picked during the inital 3 group nights be eligible to compete for a wild card spot, or only those who were next in line for a finalist position (for example, Tatiana & Anoop)? It just seems like this hasn't been clearly addressed, and the article doesn't seem to explain it either. Anyone have any further explanation? Cespence17 (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that's been stated anywhere. My impression was that the judges determine who is brought back, as that was how it was in previous seasons. However, nothing has been stated definitively (AFAIK). Hermione1980 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All 27 will compete. During the results show, I heard 1 in 9 shot. It means 3 out of 27. Syjytg (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I read on some websites that the wildcard round is only ONE HOUR long so the judges pick about 9-10 people that they like to compete in the wc round, and then out of thsoe 9-10 people they chooce 3 people to go in the top 12. I'll try and find sources... 75.57.240.173 (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Executive Producer Ken Warwick Said “And then the viewers at home will put the top three through from those three weeks, which gives us nine, and we need a top twelve. So then we’re having a wild card show, where three of the kids will be the fourth highest vote.  So from each week, you’ll get the top boy, the top girl and the next highest vote through.  And then when we get to the wild card show, the fourth from those three shows will go through and then the judges can add to it, anybody they like that they thought maybe they knew was better and was just off form.  Maybe they picked the wrong song.  Whatever reason they choose, they can make that fourth show up to probably about nine or ten people, I haven’t quite decided yet.  And then, they will decide who the final three will be.” http://www.realitytvmagazine.com/blog/2008/12/17/american-idol-wild-card-show-will-include-judges-picks/ SOMEONE SHOULD EDIT THIS, because I can't.. 75.57.240.173 (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ The website that was cited in the article covered this information, and indeed most of the wild card stuff was in the article. I've reworked it and separated it into its own paragraph to (hopefully) make it a little clearer. Hermione1980 19:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Revised this based on an article from 2/25/2009 that quoted an AI spokesperson. The previous procedure cited (including 4th or 5th based vote-getters and the WC round including 12 singers) was listed in this article as an Internet-based rumor that was incorrect. Citation included. Tedying (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we mark that Jasmine, Megan, Anoop, and Matt G sang their second song in the Wild Card Round in their song lists? JPSinger45'''(talk) 18:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ricky Braddy
The American Idol producers forced whoever runs his fansite to shut it down. Is it because they showed the t-shirts and talked about the website on live television 'cause looking back at it, it seems like Seacrest mentioned it first, and the producers said it gives him unfair advantage when it's clear that Danny Gokey has been pimped so much and has a bunch of fansites (don't get me wrong, this isn't something against Gokey). Does this count as a Controversy or is it not Notable enough? 75.57.240.173 (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is a reliable source, then go ahead. Jason (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would recommend adding though, that it's very common for AI to shut down such sites whether they are hawking something or not. I know that the contestant's MySpace sites are almost always taken down once they become a semi-finalist. So I would suggest couching the language a bit, i.e. this isn't a conspiracy or anything. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 08:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Information About Jorge Nuñez
The information provided about Jorge Nuñez is incorrect. He is a 21 year old from Cidra, Puerto Rico. He was born on October 1, 1987 at Caguas, Puerto Rico. Although he resides in Carolina for college reasons, he is naturally from Cidra. If anyone can change the old and incorrect information with this new one I'll be thanking you a whole lot and happy at the same time.


 * ✅ If anyone really thinks it's necessary, doing a Google search for "jorge nunez" "american idol" "Cidra, Puerto Rico" turns up several sources. Hermione1980 19:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, forgot you also mentioned a new birth date. Actually, I can't find any sources for either date &mdash; could you assist in that regard? Hermione1980 23:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Arianna Afsar: Multiple Ancestry Disorder
Arab? Bengali? Filipino? Take your pick and get on with it. Unless there is a source that proves any of these, they should be removed.23 prootie cute 


 * ✅ All Google results for "Arianna Afsar" + [ancestry] + "American Idol" get hits that either do not mention her ancestry at all, or reference Wikipedia. I have removed the information. Hermione1980 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dates of birth
Where does one find corroborating sources for the birth dates listed in the article? Every search I've run (granted, I've only run a few of the names, but still) comes up with either irrelevant results (person w/same name) or just Wikipedia and sites that use Wikipedia as a source. Can these dates be verified? If not, I think we should remove them and only mention their age per americanidol.com. Hermione1980 23:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Adam Lambert still on or eliminated?
Nooo... not playing that game. You people update this article often enough, so you ought to post when people are eliminated. At any rate, Adam is out, fucker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZSHm4x4TGk Sorry it burns you up to hear it. Deal with it. And seeing him on the show tonight answers my question (which you apparently had a hard time doing). --24.21.148.212 (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Youtube is not a reliable source, 2) Adam just performed last night and we haven't even had the results show yet, 3) Even if he didn't make it through last night, he still has a chance to come back for the wildcard round. So unless you're clairvoyant or work for Goldman-Sachs (the company that tallies the votes), you don't know what you're talking about. Cespence17 (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Contestant pages up for deletion
Dalejenkins | 23:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Alexis Grace
 * Danny Gokey
 * Michael Sarver
 * Completely pointless nominations, as all will easily survive. There is plenty of precedent for top 12 finalists to have articles. You should have checked your facts before nominating these articles, and wasting people's time with point-y nominations. H2O Shipper 01:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep but we go through this every single year. Why I don't know. All you have to do is look at the templates in the AI template to see the precedent. But we always have people who either don't like the show or don't quite understand the impact. I mean. As I said in my post, Melinda Doolittle makes 39 charted acts from the show. 39! And it's included people as far down at 9th (Mandisa) or a non-finalist (Mario Vasquez). --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would you even nominate these articles for deletion when we've mentioned before that it's alright for contestants to get their own articles once they make the top 12? Ridiculous...Cespence17 (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I knew. But they do. If you look here you will see just some of the AfD attempts. We go through it literally every year. It'll probably pop up again at the end of the season. It's not just the WikiProject. It's the precedant of the previous attempts and the fact that we have nearly 100 articles on American Idol contestants. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 15:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Only a few finalists lack articles, and that is because they lost notability by producing nothing for a long time post-Idol. The deletion debate should be withdrawn, they will be needed no matter what and since they are in, there is no problem in having them now. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well and even then it's iffy. Look at Chris Sligh. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He certainly warrants an article now. The only S6 finalist that might be worthy of a review is Stephanie Edwards. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nathaniel Marshall
"He is probably best known for his emotional outbursts during Hollywood week." probably best known? I don't really go on wikipedia much, but i don't think this should be there 'cause it's like speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.240.173 (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then remove it. You do not need permission first, especially in the case of biographies of living people. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

performance order
hey! I think it is necessary to add the performance order to the finalists and others (jackie and von) who have wiki pages as done in seasons 6 + 7. I also think that a scorecard like list should be composed as done in the season 1 - 4 articles. This is helpful as it wastes less time as at the moment on the season 8 page you have to skip between the male and female semi-finalists to see which group they were in. It would also show performance order for semi finalists who don't get there own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazzler9 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Performance order changes from week to week so there is really no reason to quantify that. It'd be rather difficult. Who is last one week is first the next unless I am misunderstanding you (which I very well could be). --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that once the final twelve is completely set, including performance order is a good idea. Before then, it's unnecessary, at least in my view. H2O Shipper 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * well on wiki pages season 6 and 7 they have included the performance order which i think is necessary as it helps qualify the fairness of the show e.g. if someone performs first then performs last. It also is a part of the idol controversy as adam lambert, and danny gokey performed last and advanced... the same as fantasia, latoya london, justin guarinni, etc... Frazzler9 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Brent Keith
This Idol semi-finalist whose born Brent Keith Smith. Source: http://www.brentkeithsmith.net/ ApprenticeFan (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. And? :) The show presented him as Brent Keith Smith when he auditioned (just like they had Michael Sarver as Jeremy Michael Sarver). --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is Brent's full name seeing on auditions episode. Like Michael Sarver and Alexis Grace (whose full name is Alexis Grace Middleton). --ApprenticeFan (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah there is a long history of that. LaKisha Jones went from Lakisha to LaKisha between the auditions and the finals. :) --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 12:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd redirect all the variations here, but only categorize the name that is in current usage. I made Megan Joy Corkrey the primary redirect, for example. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wilcard Info in Elimination Table
I went back on the first three seasons' pages and abbreviated "Wild Card" to "WC" in the semifinal columns on their elimination tables, and I hope we can all agree to do the same for this season. I don't feel it is necessary to spell out the whole thing and significantly expand the columns, especially considering we abbreviate other words like "Bottom" (Btm) and "Eliminated" (Elim). The whole point of abbreviations is to cut down on table width, right? Even if someone wasn't sure what "WC" meant just looking at the table, it is conveyed in the legend. MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

order
Hey i think the semi final groupings should include those who make the top 12 just so it's easier to read and also should be placed in performance order... Frazzler9 (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You already suggested the same thing above. Quit. Gage (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Top 12" boxes in the semifinals on elimination table
The following message has been added in the table mark-up where should be: "DO NOT ADD TOP 12 HERE. IT IS CONSIDERED VANDALISM, AND WILL BE REVERTED." Why is that and who decided that? Thats the way the season 1-3 charts present the info, I don't see why this season should be different or why updating completely relevent and necessary information would be considered vandalism. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is like that on the season 1-3 chart, then it should be removed there as well. In recent seasons, a Top 12 box in the contestant's row has not been added to the chart. It does not belong in the chart, and will be completely useless once there are actual placings among the Top 12 performers. Gage (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats because "recent seasons" had a different semifinals format and the significance of those results shows were those being eliminated (4 each week), unlike this season where the significance is those advancing (3 each week), and thus the table should reflect that. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The semi-final format does not affect whether or not we add Top 12 to a contestant's row. It is not necessary to indicate. Gage (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The format has everything to do with it. With the previous format, it was only necessary to indicate the contestants who were eliminated because anyone else was simply just "safe" that week, rather than having actually "advanced" based on just one performance. The focus in seasons 4-7 was eliminating the bottom 2 from each gender each week, while the semifinals focus of seasons 1-3,8 is advancing the the top 3 from separate semifinal heats, and I feel the charts should indicate it that way. I wish I could explain in a way that made more sense, but the way the seasons 1-3 charts handled this format was perfect. I would like to hear other opinions on the matter. MarkMc1990 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

When will we be able to work on the three finalist that were picked tonight? Candyplatypus (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Anytime. You don't need permission. :) --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 10:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Other performances
A previous precedant and a question. Firstly, we need sources for future performances on results shows. We've done this in the past as well. Why? Look at Jason Castro this year. Supposedly he was going to perform this week but he never did. There are often last minute changes such as that. So we need sources.

Secondly, what should we do with the weeks? Right now it says Top 13, Top 12, etc. Well. That can't be. :) They are going to have to boot off 2 people one of these weeks. The math just doesn't work otherwise. So maybe use dates instead? Or go back to this format? --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 10:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Two singers go home this week. Hermione1980 17:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So, it was just announced that JHud will be taping a performance this week after the Wed live performances, to be shown at some later unspecified date. Is there a previously used way to notate this in the "Other Performances" since it isn't dated and can't go in the table? Tedying (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Hey guys.

If you see unsourced material in here that isn't outrageous or defamatory -- in this case, the Top 13 guest performances -- don't forget that it's usually better to find a source and add it rather than just deleting material. Thanks. —Bdb484 (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. The AI website is an excellent resource as is Google News for searching purposes. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 06:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Top 13
How do people know for sure that Anoop Desai was the thirteenth contestant. for all we know, it could have been matt, jasmine, or megan that the judges were disagreeing on, and if you go to mjsbigblog.com there's an article there about how kara said that matt, jasmine, and megan were easy to pick, but jasmine was the one they were unsure about. 75.57.240.173 (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He's "thirteenth" by virtue of the fact that twelve other contestants were announced before he was. Hermione1980 00:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My issue with mentioning it is that it's misleading. It makes it sound like he was an "add-on". --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's kind of how it sounded on the show, too. :-) Hermione1980 14:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Misleading as it may be, we will probably never know for sure who the judges were on the fence about, which led to them picking a top 13. So by default, we almost have to consider Anoop the "13th pick" just by virtue of when he was announced. Cespence17 (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No we don't. :) This show is extremely bad when it comes to vote totals and placements. I mean does anyone seriously think that week 1 of the semis came down to Tatiana and Danny? Just look at DialIdol. To me it's best to simply leave that kind of stuff out. I guarantee it'll pop up later in the year when they will be ambigious about who was "saved last" so then we'll end up with a whole bunch of edits where people can't decide who finished where. Not blaming the editors. It's the show's fault for trying to create drama wherever possible. I don't like basically giving the show the benefit of the doubt for our purposes. It's not as if they've ever been consistent on such things. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 18:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me.... Paula quoted that all the panel agreed on Anoop and Matt and that they agreed on one girl. Kara said that they all agreed on Matt, Anoop and Megan. So Jasmine was the 13th pick. ... Frazzler9 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The thirteenth contestant is obviously the one eliminated first (Jasmine Murray). hehe.--23prootie (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Frazzler9--do you have a source for these quotes? Tedying (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Ryan Seacrest said yesterday that Michael and Alexis were the Bottom 2. Is it possible that we can bring that back with just palegoldenrod colored ||bgcolor="palegoldenrod"|Btm 3 and ||bgcolor="palegoldenrod"|Btm 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPSinger45 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the elimination chart necessary this season?
It looks like they're not revealing the bottom 3 anymore, but rather bringing down 2 random contestants (one to be eliminated). In that case, the chart is basically just a progressive chart of elimination dates, which wouldn't be necessary. Also, take this for what you want in case it becomes an issue, but Jorge is 13th place and Jasmine is 12th. They said between Jorge and Anoop that one of them had the lowest number of votes. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is necessary, and it is order of elimination, not number of votes. Gage (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But does it need to be presented like that? Wouldn't it be simpler and more practical to make a column for placements, a column for names, and then ONE column where we list the elimination date next to their names? Without additional information like "bottom 3", the current chart just looks silly and pointless as its just a whole bunch of blank boxes with eventual "elim"s. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Megan and Anoop were NOT revealed as being in the bottom 4, so it should not be listed as such on the chart. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well and you all are basing this on ONE week. I don't think they did a bottom 3 because 2 were going home. Let's wait. My issue right now is with the chart itself. Jasmine didn't finish "12th" and Jorge "13th". --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 02:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And here we go again. Yes Seacrest said that Jorge had the lowest amount of votes...but you could easily construe it to mean out of the ones standing there and not out of everyone. I wish this show would be more explicit. It causes us SO many headaches. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 02:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Our lives would be so much easier if the show didn't create so much collateral ambiguity from trying to create drama! Cespence17 (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know! And the bad thing, Cespence? They will do it again later in the year. Given this "save" option it might be the exact same situation. And it's not new. There are still users convinced that Phil Stacey finished 6th in season 6 and Chris Richardson 5th just because Phil was eliminated first. I don't know how many times I've changed "6th" on Phil's page to "the top 6". --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon after all. It hadn't crossed my mind that maybe they didn't do bottom 3 last week because of the double elimination. Sorry about that. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Frazzler9 has started adding "F" for performed first and "P" for pimp spot because of perceived advantage for those who are "freshest" in mind (e.g. performed last=pimp spot) and perceived disadvantage for those who performed first. Is this relevant for an encyclopedia? It seems much like the dreadful "Saved Last" wars from before. By the time the season is over, these will not be relevant or interesting. I suggest that this be removed from the chart. Tedying (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Kris Allen
Guys, it's stated here about Kris Allen that: "He is married and was a newlywed of 5 months when he auditioned for the show."

I think he has been married for five months NOW, not by the time he auditioned which was around July or August last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.19.123 (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source, change it. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad (I am the one who added the material). I misremembered the quote from the pre-top-13 bio.  I rechecked it from video clips on youtube and corrected it to read "He was married about five months before competing in the top-13." Tedying (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad (I am the one who added the material). I misremembered the quote from the pre-top-13 bio.  I rechecked it from video clips on youtube and corrected it to read "He was married about five months before competing in the top-13." Tedying (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Alexis Grace contestant page deletion.
Does anyone find it objectionable that this one contestant had her page deleted, but all the other ones remain in tact? There is no reason to delete any of these articles, as this has been standard practice to have individual pages for all of the finalists. Why change now?

I recreated the page after it was deleted, but I'm having difficulty keeping it up and running. Could anyone else back me up on the significance of these pages, or help me figure out what I need to do in order to combat this deletion war?--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 15:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A friendly warning - warring over recreation will lead to blocks, protecting the page, and probably tears. I recommend discussion first. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence why I'm igniting a discussion here =).--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 15:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah but we're not the arbiters here. I'm an admin but I don't use that "hat" often here. But this is an exception. For now, let it go. The thing is, I I tried to argue the case with the deleting admin but he has some pretty good arguments. For now, let's not push it. If we get the others made into redirects, all heck will break loose. It's not worth it, trust me. If Alexis makes the top 8 or 7 (which I suspect we will) we can try to recreate the article then. We'll have a stronger argument for notability. The thing is, this was caused by someone closing the original Alexis discussion too early so then it gave the delete side a second chance. Let's not give them more. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 15:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If that happens, to prevent the inevitable madness, can someone chat with me about it first? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently no time was wasted, as now both Gokey's and Sarver's pages have been deleted. I think it's a hilarious travesty of complete idiocy, all because some fool nominated them in the first place (but only the first semifinal group, apparently). It's just going to bring the lulz once all of these pages will need to be recreated anyway. This applies in particular to Gokey, who could very well make it towards the end. That's one of the main reasons why I support each having individual pages, because who are we to speculate on their notability? They should only be deleted if, perhaps, a year later, they've done nothing else but sing on this show.


 * For that matter, how are Jackie Tohn and/or Von Smith any more significant and worthy of having their own pages while we're watching other finalists get deleted? I just hope others can see the inanity of this.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 15:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. Going off the handle is not going to help here. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 15:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I read through the AFDs of those three, and there seems to be a violation of power. Gokey and Sarver HARDLY had a consensus for deletion. The majority opinion was that they should be kept, as it was with Grace the first nomination. (Like you said, Woohoo, the 2nd page was closed too early, which means that said admin jumped the gun based on his own subjectivity.) The admins are merely pushing their own agenda here.


 * There are several actors/actresses who've done one or two notable projects and barely have a biography. Considering all of the finalists have enough information on the web to comprise a valid biography, I find this to be a sham.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 15:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh - they're not deleted - just redirected per WP:BRD - take a look in the history - it's all there :) The 2nd AfD was not closed early, and Woohookitty said no such thing. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake, she said the 1st was closed too early =P.


 * And they're deleted in the same way Alexis was ^_^. They may be redirected, but their more extensive bios and their individual performance charts have cyber-evaporated. Tsk, tsk.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 16:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope - if you click the "history" tab on Alexis, there's no evidence the old page ever existed. On the other two, you can see all the edits that ever occurred. They are not deleted, the content has simply been replaced. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But there was a page. I've read it. It only had a little content but there was enough.--23prootie (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it was deleted per the AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking a mixture of positions, depending on their pre-Idol experience. Post-Idol, most of them will warrant articles though if past precedence is any indication. Anyone with releases or major experience pre-Idol should be an automatic keep, since they would probably have warranted an article even if they were eliminated earlier, as with Jackie Tohn, Von Smith and Joanna Pacitti. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect it depends on the extent of that pre-Idol experience. And only those who go on to do things after Idol should have their articles recreated.  Depending how this deletion discussion goes, you might want to consider a tidy-up of the previous seven series as well... Fritzpoll (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a few old finalists that redirect, and I have identified a few more that warrant such. Basically, those who did nothing post-Idol. But a large majority of finalists warrant articles for recording or performing. CrazyC83 (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you should wait ten years after the season they stared in ends before having this discussion, again. Making an album from scratch isn't easy it doesn't happen overnight, they should at least be given the benefit of the doubt with what they're doing.--23prootie (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Our inclusion guidelines are quite strict - they get an article when they demonstrate lasting notability, not before. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems silly to delete the contestants pages while they're still on the show. If it meets the inclusion standards, why not? They whould at least wait until she is eliminated to even consider deleting it. MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is ludicrous, in the extreme. The deletionists failed the first time around, didn't like the result, so they end-ran it with a DRV, and got them deleted without notifying the participants in the original AFD. There are bad-faith actions in the extreme going on here, as there were plenty of reliable sources, especially in the Gokey article. Are the deletionists now going to AFD all the other finalists' bios from seasons 1-7? This is just nuts. Completely nuts. H2O Shipper 22:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, I tried to rewrite the article thrice but Fritzpoll kept insisting that its "policy" to keep it deleted. I didn't know that Wikipedia has become an authoritarian state. I'm sad that Alexis has been a victim of politicking of a few. I hope she makes it top the top 4 or 3 and sell a lot of records so the people who deleted her article would just bite their butts.--23prootie (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I say, time and again, I read consensus at AfD debates. The consensus was to delete. I deleted.  And that which is deleted stays deleted if it is substantially the same material.  If there is a procedural aspect that I was unaware of, I apologise, but I just closed a deletion discussion. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Using the past notability rule, Arianna Afsar probably warrants an article due to her pageantry experience, plus Hollywood cuts Danielle Roundtree (pageantry) and Frankie Jordan (old releases). There are a few other borderline cases. CrazyC83 (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he's made certain that no one can re-create it there, by misusing his admin tools. Therefore, I've created a well-reffed, well-written stub at Alexis Grace (singer). I fully expect the deletionists to descend on it soon enough, and they'll find an admin willing to do the dirty work. I may even be blocked for writing the article, as everyone knows that we're not about writing well-reffed, well-written articles here, right? H2O Shipper 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, at least we have MBisanz (or whatever the hell his name is) to delete well-reffed, well-written articles, and then protect them from re-creation. What would we do without the likes of these fine gentlemen to protect us from our own ignorant selves? H2O Shipper 11:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The person is quite notable, why was she deleed in the first place?--122.53.101.212 (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So should Kristen Macnamara, Brent Keith, and Mishavonna Henson, all of whom are involved in multiple projects aside from Idol. Actually, if that criteria is used for non-finalists then we will have a flood of articles all about Idol so it might not be always practical.--23prootie (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that contestants that reach the top 6 should have/keep their articles since they will be featured in Non-Idol one-time events like talk shows just so we don't have to have this discussion again. Also anyone who is still eligible to that position, like say Lil Rounds should have an article for now.--23prootie (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Alexis Grace is going to appear on Live with Regis and Kelly this Monday. Does that qualify her for a proper page then? --203.186.235.198 (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)