Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Rogers (singer) (2nd nomination)


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

The result was   no consensus. WP:NPASR by another user. This one actually is leaning towards a "delete" consensus, but is marred by what ThaddeusB calls "a (unintentionally) disruptive nomination." King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Brandon Rogers (singer)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. After Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. He's done nothing of note since leaving Idol. DJ 10:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC.  freshacconci  talk talk  10:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: And if the tide is turning on these non-entity articles, thank God. Past Keep rationales have been on startling premises like "The Idol Wikiproject says all finalists are notable" or "Keep until they continue never to do anything notable," elements found nowhere in Wikipedia policy or guidelines.  Almost to a man, they fail WP:MUSIC (I'd be perfectly happy to concede the point for any Idol contestant that is the subject of a half-hour or more of airtime, which would clear MUSIC#12, but that has yet to happen).    Ravenswing  11:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  --  treelo  radda  15:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as a (unintentionally) disruptive nomination. The nominator rapid fire nominated 38 American Idol contestants all with the same (invalid) rationale that Alexis Grace (who finished 11th and hasn't had a chance to do anything post Idol yet) was deleted.  It is quite clear that he/she made no attempt to research any of the nominations as several quite clearly meet multiple inclusion criteria.  Some of these articles should be kept, and others merged, but none should be deleted.  All arguably meet WP:MUSIC #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition" by virtue of making the finals of American Idol and the less notable ones should at least be merged with their respective American Idol season X pages.
 * Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Jeni  ( talk ) 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per WikiProject Idol series; the Alexis Grace deletion was improper per that guideline, and this one is even more so. --RBBrittain (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per RBBrittain. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Crafty (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Despite the support of the Idol Wikiproject, subject fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Lara  19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin, the above vote is a copy and paste vote, pasted across a group of AfDs in such a short space of time that the user could not have adequately checked notability of the subject in question. Jeni  ( talk ) 19:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can we please assume good faith here? Are you actually tracking editor's !votes and "timing" edits between AFDs? How exactly are you determining whether an editor has "adequately" checked for notability and by whose standards?  freshacconci  talk talk  19:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is going to be copy/pasted into all of them as well. The nominations should have been made as one AFD with the rest bulleted. That would have saved everyone time. The nominations themselves were good. Not all should be deleted, but they are all BLPs of questionable notability and are, thus, in great need of attention. I looked over every article, and not every one of my votes reads exactly the same and there was at least one keep vote from me. It wasn't time consuming to click to the article, see where they placed and then scroll down to see if they've done anything of note. For the sake of clarity, "placed in a major competition" should be clarified to detail where, exactly, as far as Idol goes. Placing in the top 12 is too broad. Top three or four is reasonable. But that is for another discussion. Lara  08:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Placing in the top 12 is not really that broad. It depends on whether there is enough information from reliable sources, and on what they have done post-Idol.  Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Until they actually do something, they are non-notable. Should they eventually produce an album, or heck - even sing jingles for cat litter, their future article can bring light to the fact that they were once on AI ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I read the consensus is that, absent national touring, WP:BAND dictates deleting Idol contestants who don't break the top 10. However, there is some evidence that Rogers has toured nationally, so he may be kept. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 5 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.