Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Got Talent (Season 4 Auditions)


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

America's Got Talent (Season 4 Auditions)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

certainly not notable. Acts that didn't even get through the first round? Delete. Ironholds (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I, the creator of this article, think it should stay because if this was included in the original, the original article, America's Got Talent (Season 4), would be crowded with too much information and make it much harder to navigate around the page, and even to edit the page. This is why i organized the audition info into a separate article, making it easier for others to edit and navigate around the page. I have also included the references on this page for all the audition info, so there is no need to delete this article for those reasons. This is my argument against the deletion of this article. Cpudude91 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If the page is deleted, then this information IMHO should be returned to the full AGT S4 page from which it was split. Including of the failed acts in the AGT season articles has been done each season since season 2 to show, in part, the sheer diversity of acts that compete.  I did not particularly object to the split-out, but I would object to the loss of the information overall. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've certainly not seen that. There's an inclusion of failed acts accepted into the show yes, but this is a list of those who failed to even pass the auditions. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the seasons 2 & 3 page. This style was developed during season 2, discussed quite a bit on that season's talk page, and has been kept in the two seasons since.  If the style needs to change, that's an issue for the talk page of the current season, not an AFD, IMHO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Season 3 includes "auditions were held at X, Y, Z, here's some notable schmucks who failed to get through" - not a list of everyone who auditioned ever in every location who was featured in any episode of the TV show for more than 0.5 of a second. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Season 3 also includes a full list of the acts who were eliminated, not just a paragraph.

Yorksmanwiki9 (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Season 2 & 3's pages are just as comprehensive as season 4. I should know, as I typed in most of that data back then, working through the RNO summaries as reference, and listing each act that failed or succeeded. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep essentially summarizes a number of episodes in a single article. RadioFan (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It actually summarizes only the rejected acts side of those episodes. It would not be too hard to collect the accepted acts info from the history of the main AGT article, but then you would have the issue of duplication of information between this and the main AGT S4 page, where the accepted act information has already migrated down the page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have included all the audition info from the acts that did pass through, but did not include any info beyond the auditions Cpudude91 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - The information should be merged to America's Got Talent (season 4), there is no merit to having its own article, especially since the article is essentially just a list. Gage (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- If the article is merged, it will be hard to navigate around the AGT Season 4 page, which makes editing and navigating the webpage very difficult, which is why it was created.Cpudude91 (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep While I don't think that individual episodes of a TV series are inherently notable, the summary of a season generally is. In this case, the audition phase of AGT has had episodes that get the highest Nielsen ratings, and even the reruns do well.  As such, I think it's a legitimate spinout of the Season 4 article. Mandsford (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - Per previous reason. Gage (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I split the page because it is hard to navigate the AGT S4 page when the audition info is there. When it is split, it is much more organized and easier to edit and browse. Cpudude91 (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You only get to !vote once.  Anything after the first !vote should be shown as Comments, or just as responses like this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just to let people know, relisting does not mean that you need to, or get to, !vote a second time. The idea of a relist is that a consensus cannot be discerned from the existing debate, so more time is give, in the hopes that additional people will express opinions, or that the existing debators can move towards a useful consensus.  While there's nothing wrong with restating opinions after a relist, it's not really necessary, and people should definitely not "revote".  - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an honest mistake that most of us, including I, have made once, and it's one of the few instances where it's okay to strike through someone else's edit as part of the correction, which I've done a few times. Although the debate isn't a vote, the closing administrator does look at the heading of each argument to get an idea of how many people are weighing in on the subject.  Mandsford (talk) 14:06, 21 August 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.