Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Rogers (singer) (3rd 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  Procedural close - the last AfD closed a mere five days before this AfD began. Give it a rest, please. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete. Last AFD came to no consensus with a reccomendation for renomination. 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 (failing WP:1EVENT); the album he has apparently released has not charted. WIKIPROJECT IDOL GUIDLINES DO NOT HOLD ANY WEIGHT AT AFD. I also suggest WP:SALT to prevent fans from recreating. DJ 15:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - doesn't meet the notability criteria McMarcoP (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - He does seem to be the subject of many non-trivial articles, although these are all in reference to his being booted from Idol. He has also performed music for a notable work of media as stated in the notability criteria. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are these sources you speak of? And besides, thousands of people audition for American Idol each year and about 100+ are subject to trivial sources. We need to use WP:COMMONSENSE. DJ 17:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  19:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close This AfD was started less than five days after the last AfD was closed as No Consensus. Aspects (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-read the opening argument. "Last AFD came to no consensus with a reccomendation for renomination" DJ 20:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was not a recommendation for renomination, it was closed as no prejudice against speedy renomination, but according to WP:NPASR: "However, when the no-consensus result is due to lack of participation, the closer may specify no prejudice against speedy renomination." The result was not due to a lack of participation, so the NPASR should not have been applied. Aspects (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. AI fanboys need to learn that they are no exception to the notability rules. Bravedog (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, speedy close. No less notable than he was five days ago. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What?!?! The result of the last AFD was No Consensus. That doesn't mean that he is notable. DJ 23:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but it means that there's no reason to believe community opinion has changed, and there's no net gain in wasting everyone's time and generating even more acrimony. Whatever possesses you to be so obsessed over this that you harangue virtually everyone who doesn't share your opinions and do what you canto make the editing experience here unpleasant? Rather than combing through harmless material whose removal, even if perfectly carried out, generates only minimal improvement to Wikipedia, why not try on weed out the harmful garbage? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place for you to air you view on the AFD process. This is. DJ 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. This is supposed to be a civil discussion of the issues involved, and everyone who posts here is allowed, probably encouraged, to explain their positions, which may or may not call for discussion of process issues in the context of specific discussions. But it's not a place for you to cast aspersions, over and over and over, on editors who disagree with you, or, maybe worse, editors who you expect to disagree with you.  You really need to develop a better sense of perspective, and not take such personal offense from the simple fact that not everyone agrees with you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with offence. You may not have noticed but this is a debate, not a vote. Therefore, I can debate with any point that I see fit. So stop with the personal attacks. I think that you're the person who has problems with other people disagreeing with you, not me. DJ 00:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can "debate with any point" you see fit, but I can't "air my view" on points I think relevant? Now you're just being hypocritical. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. You're attacking the user, not the comments. Big difference. DJ 00:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to your comment, a few lines up, that I shouldn't "air my views" on the AFD process here. There's no point in attempting to hold a discussion with someone who manifests no awareness of his comments less than an hour earlier. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking about you airing your views on WP:AFD, rather than this particular discussion. We appear to have had our wires crossed. DJ 01:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep for the time being per WP:COMMONSENSE. Every country has these terrible shows which amazingly are hugely popular.  Another editor said this particular one is the #1 rated show in the biggest media market in the world, I trust it at face value.  Consequently, many, many people will be interested in such articles on the contestants, there is a useful role for Wikipedia, and as long as the articles are sourced and there are no BLP concerns, let's keep them for the time being.  Nominating them for deletion is a drama magnet, new editors will try to recreate them if deleted, megabytes of frustration, divisive and confrontational stuff that sucks the life out of the community.  Maybe there is a border infringement on the highly celebrated WP:N.  And so what?, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we have no shortage of space per WP:NOTPAPER.  Lets come back in two years time.  In all likelihood, these dayflies will face a completely uncontroversial deletion.  In the meantime, we can spend our time more wisely building an encyclopedia. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, wouldn't something like List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5) be more appropriate? DJ 15:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you are ironic with "more appropriate". That article is even more detailed, and each character in the expanded socalled "list" has its own article.  It's a good example of the enormous amount of energy Wikipedia editors put into this field.  Must be interesting stuff for an anthropologist or sociologist.  But my point is equally valid there - keep out BLP concerns, OR, POV and ADVERT, in that order of priority, and let's revisit the stuff in a couple of years, decisions will be swift. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as notability is not established by reliable secondary sources. I could be persuaded to change my vote to keep if this problem can be fixed. Plastikspork (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Procedurally, it's sad that a new AfD takes place 5 days after the previous. Although I don't think that all American Idol rejects losers deserve an article, this kind of haranguing is a sad waste of Wikitime ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 19:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Close as no consensus and wait a month Given that the previous AfD was closed with the specific statement that a relist was desirable because of "a (unintentionally) disruptive nomination" and the exact same nomination was given again, we are more likely to settle the issue after a pause.    DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 16 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.