Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Stone (Pineapple Dance Studios)


 * 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   merge to Pineapple Dance Studios. Spartaz Humbug! 04:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Stone (Pineapple Dance Studios)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:GNG and contains no WP:RS. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Already passed speedy deletion and confirmed by administrator to have notability. If you want me to improve the article, fine, but theres no way the article is going - his frequent media activities and public interest ensure an article should be here.
 * Agreed sources need to be improved, and I am working on that. As for notability, that is more than covered in the article.  I will add references now, and hopefully that will satisfy you.  I do think its a shame when people would rather delete an article than improve it, especially when its one which is so clearly bound to either stay, or end up back, on wikipedia. IainUK (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Threatening to re-create an article that might be deleted via community discussion is a bit disruptive, so be careful. Please also read the information on WP:AFD on how to comment/discuss here.  I don't want to keep fixing your formatting ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have not threatened to re-create a deleted article Bwilkins! I am saying, due to this man's current popularity and media coverage, there is little or no doubt that the article will be created again if it is deleted - I did not say or imply this would be by me. Please read carefully.  Sorry for the minor formatting error, and thank you for taking the time to clear it up. IainUK (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment References now added to article, so hopefully that point is satisfied. As for notability - well it seems to me that is all covered, but if it can be improved somehow, some help or advice would be nice!  Deleting an article of a popular person is not the best first option for the community in my opinion. IainUK (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable at this time. According to the article, subject has had "brushes" with fame (not notable) and showed up to dance in a Pussy Cat Dolls subsidiary team, but left prior to participating or becoming involved with them in any way.(not notable) Other than that, it looks like he was on Big Brother(not notable) and works as a dancer and formed a new pop band of sorts.(too new to establish notability) Clearly, it sounds like he's on the right track for "fame". However, in my opinion, notability has not yet been established to support a stand-alone article. Could suggest a redirect to the band's article, but the band appears to be lacking notability as well. A redirect to Pineapple Dance Studios may be plausible, but he's barely mentioned there. Cindamuse (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because he has his own article. You couldn't fit him into one of those articles because he does so much now, he is no longer just a front man on the Pineapple Dance Studios (although even that by itself warrants an article - see Louie Spence ) - he also has a band, he features on other TV shows - so you couldn't tie him down to one of these articles.  Do a UK search on Google, or any news site for "Andrew Stone" and make your own mind up how well know he is.  You'll see he is everywhere (but wikipedia?) IainUK (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Before I participate in discussions here, I read the article, review the talk page and article's history, and perform a comprehensive search for reliable sources to either support or oppose inclusion on Wikipedia. I do not compare articles with other stuff to justify one position or another. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. As such, I have determined that the subject is not notable at this time. It's not personal. Just policy. Cindamuse (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Bwilkins talk page shows that he wants the article deleted because he does not like the subject. Andrew Stone is one of the main people on a prime-time TV show with over 9 million viewers, he has done other things like appearing on Big Brother, and he is a member of a Pop band.  He has done many press interviews and is popular in the UK media (as the references prove).  Seems so strange to me that anyone would want to delete an article for someone who is so prominent in the media.  Surely that would damage wilkipedia's credibility.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IainUK (talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? At what point did I ever say that I didn't like the subject. AfD is not a personal attack on your work, so stop taking it personally. Adding comments that are distinctly untrue such as the above will serve to weaken your argument. You made your !vote, now get to work trying to actually make the article VALID. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The way you spoke about the subject on your talk page. The TV show already has its own article, as do the studios themselves, along with other people who were on the show - should they all be deleted too?  I have spent time improving the article, I have added references like I said.  The fact that this guy is always on TV means people will want to know who he is.  That is why I made the article.   The only person being personal here is you - with your direct insults, remarks on talk page and in Edit Summaries... I am simply passionate about wikipedia and giving people the information they need.  Unlike you, I haven't said anything personal.  I don't know you. IainUK (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - merge anything worthwhile into the band article, imo as yet not individually notable, seems like the most notable individual thing was going into big brother for those days. Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some of the sources on the page such as 1, 2, and 3 appear to be "significant coverage". Are the sources reliable? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are widely accepted, they seem a bit promotional though imo and in the content there is nothing really shouting at me this is a notable thing or a notable award or a single charted song. Is there something specific that says to you that this individual person is notable enough to warrant his own BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, I'm kind of new at this whole "voting" thing but I've read and closed enough AFDs to see the phrase "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" quite frequently. If a subject has those things, then it would pass WP:GNG right? The fact that independent journalists have decided to write about these "mundane things" he has done, the "mundane award" he got, and interview him should give some weight to the "keep" argument shouldn't it? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In WP:MUSN it gives a fuller definition - as this guy is described as a "wannabe pop singer", the type of coverage is important ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 14:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I've read both. WP:GNG is our main notability guideline, the other is supplemental. It is quite possible for a "wannabe" pop star to be notable if secondary sources find his "wannabeness" significant. Example, "Youtube celebrities" and "myspace bands" aren't WP:MUSIC notable on their own no matter how many "groupies" they have or how much people talk about them on forums and blogs. However, if independent journalists from news organizations find them significant enough to cover, then they can still meet the general notability guidelines. Now whether or not this warrants a standalone article or not is another matter. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that one journalist calls him a "wannabe pop star" and another calls him a "successful pop star" is irrelevant. Yes, the type of coverage matters to some extent - but whether well-known for a good thing or a bad thing, I'd say is still noteworthy.  There is no doubt this is a controversial character - but I'd say most people in the UK at least know who he is.  With all his media activities currently, people are sure to search for his name to find out more about him - do we really want to let those people down? IainUK (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - As per Cindamuse who has said it all  for me. 20 minutes or more of searching  for something  that  makes a true celebrity  here has failed to  provide any  RS that  establish  the subject's claim  to  fame.--Kudpung (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that being a "true celebrity" or having a "claim to fame" is not required for inclusion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The GNG is also a minimum requirement for possible inclusion only. This here is really a personal judgment through personal interpretation of the guidelines, he has three citations and they mention him a fair bit, so make your choice, I am waiting to be persuaded that there is something specific that is notable for his own BLP on wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject has reliable sources indicating notability and is active in multiple areas making merging into any parent article impractical. Exxolon (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to Pineapple Dance Studios (TV series). Doesn't have a huge amount of coverage, probably best covered in the context of that show. Btw, here's a story about him for another reality show in 2007: Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to Pineapple Dance Studios (TV series). Per Fences and windows just above. --John (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The subject rather obviously hasn't achieved anything of any significant. As one of the sources says, he "just hasn’t made it yet." 217.44.64.166 (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Citations are reliable - subject seems to be active in the media a lot. Worth keeping. 80.82.209.127 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well known person - article shouldn't be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.209.127 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazing attempt to vote stack here. Striked repeated !vote. Rehevkor ✉  01:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - No evidence that he is notable at this time. Codf1977 (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry but to say there is no evidence that he is currently notable is simply untrue - the article clearly states he has just been involved in a primetime docudrama on Sky1 - one of the main national channels in the UK. It also states he is in a band with a lot of upcoming and current activity, gigs, TV and festival appearances.  It also states that he will feature prominently again in a new primetime Sky1 docudrama currently in production.  It also states his other media activities, such as being a celebrity guest on Big Brother.  And all of these notability claims are sourced to the likes of BBC, Sky1 and The Guardian newspaper.  The subject has taken part in multiple media activities (as referenced), and has had significant roles in multiple notable tv programmes.  He is certainly controversial, and has a significant fan base in the UK.  It wouldn't be appropriate to fit him into one article, when he has done work in other areas which is notable on its own.  If I type "Andrew Stone" into a worldwide Google search from the UK, every single result but 2 on the top 3 pages is about this subject.  I really don't think we should be deleting articles like this from wikipedia.  Iain UK   talk  10:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And may be in the future but now he does nto seem to be notable. Codf1977 (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh WP:GHITS ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Bwilkins, thank you for your good faith comment. I am familiar with WP:GHITS and believe I have a good understanding of it.  To clarify, I am not saying the Google results alone are should be a guarantee that the subject is included in Wikipedia.  In fact, contrary to the examples in the policy, I have given a fully detailed comment stating why I believe there is notability in this article.  However, I do believe the Google results have some relevance, as it confirms the subject's enduring popularity, at least in the UK - and it also confirms that there are many sources are of good quality (BBC, Sky, etc.).  So whilst I do not believe google hits warrants an article, I do believe that it is relevant to my overall point and this discussion.  There has been no breach or confusion of WP:GHITS here, but nevertheless, I appreciate your good intention.  Iain UK   talk  10:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - That he has done nothing of significance does not necessarily make him non-notable. There are plenty of people in this day of 'celebrity for the sake of it' who have done nothing of significance, but remain notable. Admittedly, it's probably not a reason on its own to keep the article, but it is not the only reason for keeping it. The person is the subject - and arguably the most popular character - in an extremely popular UK tv show - one which consistently pulls in huge viewing figures (both proportionately to viewing figures and compared to other shows on the same channel) and one of the reasons for this is this person. It is true that his band are not successful in that they are not popular, do not have a large fan base, have sold few albums - indeed, do they actually have a record contract?? - but, again that does not make him non-notable. In fact, he is famous BECAUSE of the abject failure of his band and because they are renowned as being a bit rubbish coupled with his belief that they are the best thing this side of pluto. He is what we call in the UK a 'wannabe' and I think there is some misunderstanding about what this means. It does not mean that because they 'want to be' famous therefore there are not famous; instead it is a reference to someone who simply thinks they are something which the lack the real talent to be - in this case a popstar. Ironically, as is often the case, these people become famous for their 'wannabe' attitude, rather than for the talent they believe they have. I believe we should keep the article, and my vote goes that way. However, if that cannot be the case, unquestionably he should be mentioned in detail in the Pineapple Dance Studios article. 78.150.21.193 (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Selective merge into Pineapple Dance Studios; I don't think he's quite notable enough for a standalone article, although he probably deserves a mention in Pineapple Dance Studios. The notability is very borderline to me; the coverage is there but not quite significant enough or of the right spirit (i.e., sort of promotional or blurbs).  — fetch ·  comms   00:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per my comments earlier as I think he just squeaks by WP:GNG. Also would support a merge. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2010 (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.