Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eoghan Quigg


 * 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. This was a very difficult discussion to navigate. On first skim, one sees "delete redirect merge redirect keep keep keep keep redirect keep redirect keep keep delete redirect keep redirect redirect", which seems to give slight advantage for keep. However, on scrutiny of many of the keep !votes, we see a lot of likieitness, crystal, and unarticulated or underarticulated reasoning. So then further scutiny is given to the redirect and merge !votes, which as well, as a group, provide some iffy and weak reasoning. What is clear, is that the participants here do not support outright deletion. On final analysis, the fact that several of the keeps address the fact that this article's subject meets the secondary retention criteria of WP:Music, was the most compelling; so the outcome, therefore decided as such.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 12:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Eoghan Quigg

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Exactly the same reasoning as at Articles for deletion/JLS (X Factor Group) (closed as redir): Creation of a standalone article for Eoghan Quigg is both premature and unneccessary: premature because he is currently only known for his involvement in the X Factor and WP:BIO1E applies, and unneccessary because a bio already exists at List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_5). If he gains independent notability then an article would be appropriate but to assume he will before the event violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ros0709 (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect With JLS being closed as a redirect, I don't see why Eoghan Quigg should be treated any differently. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article also seems to be a small-scale vandalism magnet, and low-level edit-warring of the "Londonderry", no "Derry" sort. Not sufficient reason to !vote, so passing for now.  Cheers,  This flag once was red propagandadeeds 11:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak merge - on the one hand, he didn't win. On the other hand, it's probably quite rare for the Unionists and Republicans to agree on something... Sceptre (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect since JLS arnt yet notable enough for their own article. Also, its a year before Eoghan can release a single and/or album anyway! JS (chat) 13:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: - Semi-protected against strong current of vandalism. Caulde  18:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep seems like he has landed a record deal with Simon Cowell. And could be the Irish selection for the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest 2009(announced tomorrow). The notability speaks for itself.--Judo112 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep He is notable. As Judo112 stated he has landed a record deal. Its just a matter of time before a record is out. Why delete or merge an article that soon will be recreated, and everyone knows it?. And as stated earlier he is one of two singers currently in the running to represent Ireland in the Eurovision. Him or Johnny Logan.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hmm, still lots of ifs and buts here. Have you read WP:CRYSTAL? Also, Eoghan can't release anything for a year due to a clause in his X Factor contract. So "matter of time before a record is out" isnt exactly a strong enough reason to keep at the moment. JS (chat) 18:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll consider a "keep" !vote if Eoghan Quigg is Ireland's Eurovision 2009 act; however, the relevant article currently states that (a)Johnny Logan may have made a deal with RTE, and (b) Eoghan "has also stated that he would like to represent Ireland". Too wishy-washy for a "keep" !vote at this stage.  I'm ignoring uncited claims of record deals; I'll pay more attention when something is actually released.  Cheers,  This flag once was red propagandadeeds 19:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Actually forget all the talk of a record deal. He's shown that he's a figure of unity amongst divided people. That's good enough for me. Especially since I've seen it mentioned again and again and again. He doesn't even need a record deal to be notable. He's already succeeded where many have failed. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 21:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Local boy gets support from his home community in a national competition' is not unusual or notable. Perhaps this is different considering which home community this is but that is anyway still irrlelevant - it's still about the X Factor. Ros0709 (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect. He is yet to do anything significant outside of the show, and any coverage is because of the show. If he does land a deal or take part in something else significant (when either of these is confirmed, not a few off the cuff quotes buried deep in an article) then the article can be restored. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. When several million people know who you are, you're notable. Esteffect (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When several million people only know you because you've been on X Factor, only X Factor is notable. See WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. So far, nothing else establishes independent notability. Ros0709 (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect: as per other previous X-Factor finalists. JamesBurns (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Also if anyone remembers Eoghan Quigg has had a number one single. Forgetting anything else this normally would warrant his own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.202.114 (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets criterion #9 of WP:MUSICBIO, "has won or placed in a major music competition" since he finished the X Factor in the third place. Technically JLS should also be allowed to have their own article due to this.-- Alasdair 08:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this argument blows away my deletion rationale. Similarly for JLS, but not Diana Vickers. Ros0709 (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * X Factor UK is not a music competition. Come on now. 86.44.18.218 (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment On what I said above. He's mentioned here on an official government website... --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 09:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect Not notable enough at the moment to warrant an entire article. I would lean towards voting for delete, but people may search his name. A paragraph on The X Factor page is entirely sufficient for now. Sky83 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, per 219.79.202.114 and Alasdair; assuming 219.79.202.114 is correct, and he has had a number one single, then that, and Placing third in X Factor, just about meets notability requirements. Cheers,  This flag once was red propagandadeeds 14:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He is notable in a totally different way than that JLS band, those guys didnt have a record deal for example. He is an upcoming singer and will probably release an album sooner than later. So i say keep. --Judo112 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, if he is notable (and I still don't entirely agree that he is), it's in exactly the same way as JLS. There is nothing that would make him notable where JLS aren't. Bottom line here, if Quigg's page is going to be kept, then JLS must be reinstated as an article in it's own right. Nothing separates them (unless you count that Quigg actually placed lower than JLS on the show). I still think this is a bit of a slippery slope though, because it could be argued that if you're going to allow someone an article solely on the strength of third place in a reality music competition (yes, I know it's part of the rules here, but there has to be some limit surely), we could end up with multiple useless articles on all contestants that have ever taken part in the live shows of any competition, since it could be said that 'placing' in a competition could stretch to 12th place. I still vote for redirect until he has done something more notable than the one thing.Sky83 (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the anon ip user is refering to this - Hero_(Mariah_Carey_song) - when he says Eoghan has had a number one single. Individual members of a group usually don't get their own article (unless other solo notability exists) so that does not add to the case imo. sassf (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, He is a star in the making. I think it's best to have this page for anyone who wants to find out some info on him and his earlier life etc. I say we keep it. XF5000 17:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per nominators reasons. There is established precedent for this sort of thing across all reality show articles (and the JLS decision is a direct precedent).  Eoghan can have his own page reinstated once he has done something notable outside of the X Factor - meeting the WP:MUSIC criteria for instance.  sassf (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * RedirectSince others like JLS and Diana Vickers were made redirects to the x factor finalists page, and other signed act ruth lorenzo wasn't even made a page, it is clear that Eoghan should be redircted, as it is only his fans or fans from the x factor that want to keep him, until he releases he first single, you should redirect. 86.157.104.50 (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2008 (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.