Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Spillane


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. brenneman (t) (c) 06:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Spillane
Another forgettable runner-up on an (nation'snamegoeshere) Idol. Besides being a runner-up on a reality TV show, he's a performer that miserably fails WP:MUSIC. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Cnwb 01:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable musician. &mdash; J I P | Talk 08:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for one of top places, entertainer followed by many in public, ongoing appearance, national tv show, and precident.  He easily qualifies under WP:BIO "television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions".  Under WP:MUSIC "Has been prominently featured in any major music media".  The show itself is part of "major music media".  --rob 09:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A runner-up in a national Idol series is a very liberal application of "promiently featured in major music media," and that WP:BIO criterion is rarely interpreted to include people who appear on game shows. As I recall, articles on runners-up in Survivor and American Idol (which, unlike Australian Idol, are broadcast internationally) are almost always deleted. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * AFD results have changed. Quite a number Idol finalists have been kept (or often not nominated, based on acceptance).  Generally those outside the top 10 have been kept out.  If you re-read the nomination, the current version of the article in question, the show article, the person's web profile, the show web site, do a google on him, look at more recent AFD precident, you'll see it's a slam-dunk keep.  Also, this is not a 10 minute appearance on price-is-right. --rob 09:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I did all of those things and I still disagree. (Anything that isn't an obvious nn-bio candidate I Google before nominating.) I was making a distinction between cast and contestant, not comparing him to a one-time contestant on a typical game show. (I just couldn't remember the word "contestant.") The term "television personality" is generally not used to refer to the latter. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I suspect you're using the criterion of who is *worthy* of notability, and not who has generally been found to be notable. Wikipedia shouldn't be picking who it thinks is worthy of notability.  Rather, if somebody has been widely found to be notable (media coverage being one factor), that means there is a) sufficient sources of reliable information to make a good article and b) sufficient number of people with an interest to read and edit the article.  The fact any of us don't think they "deserve" it, is quite irrelevant.  Your views on what a television personality is are a leftover of the 1980s, and no longer apply.  --rob 10:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I was applying WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and AFD precedent in what I saw as a straightforward way, not making some sort of worthiness judgement. I'm wholly indifferent to Australian Idol or its contestants. I suspect keeping this article will mean it's a stub forevermore or filled with the sort of silly "contestant profile" trivia one finds on Idol fansites, however. Your views on what a television personality is are a leftover of the 1980s, and no longer apply. Uh. Kay. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's one of the remaining finalists and could still win Astrokey44 10:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If he wins, he might in time become notable, but if Wikipedia has a page for every contestant (or even just every finalist) in every national variant of every "reality" TV show it will (IMO) rapidly become completely unworkable.  Perhaps the best thing would be to merge all of them into a single article for each (national?) show; they can always be split out again if they do in future become genuinely notable.  Past experience indicates that the majority will not. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, he's not notable yet. In fifty years, who would want to know who a reality TV contest is (or now for that matter)? -- Kjkolb 13:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. From my understanding of the above arguments, the contest is still going on (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Wouldn't it have made more sense to have this debate after we knew whether or not he won? In any case, no vote right now, but I like the suggestion of putting all non-winners of a particular [countryname] Idol on a single page. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Trollderella: I see you vote this "Factual verifiable and neutral" over and over.  Being those three things is great, but does not automatically warrant an article in an encyclopedia.  This person is a third place runner up or something on a marginally notable television show that has not been around long at all.  Flash in the pan.  delete. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 03:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Your assertion that "Factual verifiable and neutral" does not automatically warrant an article in an encyclopaedia is highly contentious to say the least.
 * "'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV"' (Jimbo Wales, 30 January 2004 (link)).
 * Snottygobble | Talk 02:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.Gator1 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep until he is eliminated from the show. If he progresses to beyond the last three, keep regardless, otherwise, merge to somewhere within Australian Idol (series 3) or similar, as per Big Brother UK series 6. Bobo192 19:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete even if he wins. I would require at least one non-idol fame source for inclusion; google: Daniel Spillane -idol (not much).  Already listed in Australian Idol -- I can't believe every single contestant of season 3 has their own page (first elimnated: Tarni_Stephens ) !?  Spinoff Idol contestants are not encyclopedic. He does have a 42 member fan club &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 20:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. not yet notable. mikka (t) 23:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete at this stage. If he wins or is runnerup, it might be a different story as the two winners and runnerups of Australian Idol have both had number 1 hits. Indeed, several entrants in the first series qualified under WP:music by having hit records in the Australian charts. However, I would be prepared to reconsider in a month's time depending on his success. Capitalistroadster 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete He can try again when he signs to his first label. Denni &#9775; 02:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep He's still in the public eye three times a week (Australian Idol twice, and Inside Idol). If/when he becomes forgotten to the Australian public, maybe delete then, but he's certainly not at this stage. Ianiceboy 10:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep If all the other Australian Idol's from every other series have a page, why not Daniel? I don't like the guy personally, but why shouldn't he miss out? He's made it so far into the Top 6 of Australian Idol 3. --58.84.94.54 10:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * if their only claim to fame is appearing on this show, they should ALL be delted. This is wkipedia, not wikiflashinthepan. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 21:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Some time in the '10s, some imaginative history student is going to write a masters thesis entitled The Reality TV Phenomenon and its Effect on the Lives of its "Stars". And then all these verifiable, NPOV, articles on flashes in the pan will be very useful indeed. Snottygobble | Talk 03:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete nn. Dottore So 13:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - someone's gone to a bit of trouble to write this and right now he is a known name. -- Ian &equiv; talk 03:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's a precedent for keeping these, and it's not a bad article. Ambi 02:33, 27 October 2005 (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.