Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollie Steel


 * 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 "keep" decision below was changed to no consensus after discussion at Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_4.--Aervanath (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The result was   keep. No solid consensus, thus defaulting to keep, which I think had a more solid following anyhow after consideration of all things said. Nja 247 08:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hollie Steel

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

WP:BLP1E, currently with 1 source, so fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. Otterathome (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is only a few hours old and the nomination does not seem to have considered good alternatives to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Given the precedents of Susan Boyle and Shaheen Jafargholi, we can expect thousands of readers here looking for information and so it is absurd for this name to lead nowhere here.  WP:BLP1E is not appropriate because the person is the topic, not some larger event in which she played an incidental part. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, here's a news search which demonstrates worldwide coverage already. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:POPULARPAGE and WP:OTHERSTUFF aren't great deletion arguments. The entire article is about her appearance in that show, so WP:BLP1E applies. Linking to a google news search doesn't help either. Each source needs to be individually assessed, add them here or the article.--Otterathome (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken as the main topic of the source which I added was the illness which the subject suffered six years ago. The subject is clearly notable and the coverage indicates that she passes WP:ENTERTAINER as well as WP:N. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I am mistaken, the source only exists because of her appearance in the show. I can't read the article, but I somehow I doubt it doesn't talk about her appearance in the show. Because, does every minor who nearly loses an organ get in the news? No.--Otterathome (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are still misunderstanding and misapplying WP:BLP1E which says, "if the individual's role within it is substantial", they merit coverage. It is only if they "essentially remains a low-profile individual" that coverage is not merited.  This is not the case here - the subject is now a notable star, her history is notable and this is demonstrated by coverage of all aspects of her life. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is entirely WP:CRYSTAL sounds, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." can you find any sources not published this month because of her appearance? If not, then WP:BLP1E still applies.--Otterathome (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 17:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * weak keep. Though it is still a bit WP:CRYSTALy, I believe the the WP:BLP1E argument is somewhat voided by the fact that it would be silly to have an article on Hollie Steel's appearance on Britain got talent instead of just this article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Not everyone appearing on a TV talent show is automatically entitled to an encyclopedia article. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Straw man. This is not just anyone - this seems to be the main competition for Susan Boyle and so we can expect a lot more coverage as they go head-to head. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What we expect in coverage is WP:CRYSTAL, which is the reseon my opinion is rather weak. I expect coverage too, but we have to base the decision on weather we should keep or delete on the currect situation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply if it's "notable and almost certain to take place". Colonel Warden (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My interpetation of almost certain to take place is a little narrower. The finals of Britain's got talent IMO is almost certain to take place. That Steel is going to be in it, not so much. That it is almost certain that something will become notable, is not something I believe WP:CRYSTAL is supposed to be supporting, but rather seems exactly what it is warning against. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * She's currently the 9/2 second favorite. The only way she's not going the distance is some kind of accdent/disqualification which would cause an even greater media frenzy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So? It's still a gamble. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't care what odds the bookies give unless it's objectively 100%. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep As the author of the article I vote we keep it.  The power of wikipedia is that it can be timely and keep up to events and popular culture in real time.  We don't need to be controlled by an elite like a traditional encyclopedia editorial board.  Yes, just like Susan Boyle and Paul Potts, this young lady is taking the Internet by storm.  As of my writing this opinion over 600,000 views have been made on youtube.com of videos showing Steel's performance.  Wikipedia can afford a few bytes to keep an article about a this young lade.  User: Dane C. Sorensen  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.219.252 (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)   Sorry, I forgot to sign in, but I did right the above.  And the count is now over a 1,000,000 on youtube! Dane Sorensen
 * This AfD conversation is mentioned on Britain's Got Talent. Ikip (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, snowball keep per above. Ikip (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on Ikip, that's nonsense. There is no snow here. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom to Britain's Got Talent (series 3). This is a 1E right now, and it can be broken out if something long-term comes out of this.  Right now it's three sentences and before I edited it down to that, it sounded like a grossly spammy press release.  It's hardly a snowball keep by the way, her near loss of an organ, unless reported at the time of her loss of an organ because she was, seems irrelevant.  She's hardly the only four year old to have had pneumonia when she was young.  Also, WP:NOT and WP:ATA; given she's been famous for two days now, it's really quite premature to have any substantial coverage.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete textbook 1E case. We bent the rules for Boyle because she is clearly notable - having being parodied on South Park - and is a very notable interest story on the other side of the pond, none of the other BGT series 3 contestants have risen to the notability required to surpass the 1E. I could make a similar case for DJ Talent (who got through last night) or Dan Kahn (who didn't). With only three auditions out of the seven done, and speaking as someone who knows a bit about this crap, we can't really trust the betting market as a sign of popularity as they're in flux. When she gets the recording contract/RVS performance, then she'll be notable, but I doubt she will be beforehand. Can be adequately covered in the series 3 article. Sceptre (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fact checking: DJ Talent is notable for two events, and so is Shaheen. However, Hollie still isn't. Sceptre (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Series 3 article. Not notable at present (despite a few newspaper reports). Quantpole (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She has newspaper coverage, which means she qualifies for an article under the current wikipedia rules.  D r e a m Focus  03:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the appropriate series article for Britain's Got Talent. Boyle was widely reported on because of the Youtube hits she generated and how her appearance impacted her fame. Jafargholi appeared in a children's television show and toured as young Michael Jackson is a musical/concert tour in at least 3 different countries. So both Jafargholi and Boyle have had significant impact outside the show, which I do not yet see for Hollie Steel. - Mgm|(talk) 08:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Good refs now. BUC (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Textbook BLP1E. The article doesn't even mention anything she's done outside that one appearance on BGT! - Brian Kendig (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the text book and quote the part where it says to delete anything. All I see is "In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.".  So your conclusion doesn't match the guideline you cite. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Usually the better options." In this case, the 1E is "appeared on a TV show". I see nothing to differentiate this contestant from other contestants who've appeared on similar TV shows and do not have Wikipedia articles. If she were listed with all the other contestants of Britain's Got Talent, as is done with articles for some other reality TV shows, I wouldn't have a problem with that. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I see some talk in these nominations of bias against British as opposed to Americans. Checking, I find that there are hundreds of articles in the category American Idol participants.  What gives?  Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking further, they seem to get in per WP:MUSIC#9 = "Has won or placed in a major music competition.". This applies to Hollie too as she has clearly established her place in this major event. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're misreading that. "Placed in a competition" means getting second or third place. The competition is still ongoing, so she hasn't gotten anything yet. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That goes to show how vague the guidelines really are. I consider making the final "placing in a competition" too even if that final contains more than 3 contestants. But yes, with the competition still ongoing, using that criterion is way too soon. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Admittedly not as clearly exempt from 1E as  Shaheen Jafargholi.  But as per Colonel Walden easily passes WP:MUSIC several times over.   If we delete popular articles that meet our inclusion criteria, we're signalling that the peoples encyclopaedia is really   eliteopedia! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete just another contestant in an ongoing reality show. Come back when she's won something, or done something important that doesn't have to do with the show. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While it is early for her long-term notability to be assured, I see little harm in letting the article develop for at least a while before merging it into the BGT season article.  Powers T 23:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If I had an account, I'd vote to keep the article. It's definitely because I'm a Britians Got Talent fan and not because it has gotten 4 additional sources. 24.12.63.48 (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT, WP:BLP1E. This is a textbook case. We spin out into articles after somebody has actually achieved notability for more than one event, not on the "we think they might" principle. Ray  Talk 19:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting both policies. WP:NOT is directed at routine news like weather reports and road accidents.  This topic is not routine, as demonstrate by the worldwide coverage.  And WP:BLP1E doesn't mean what you assert as we have lots of articles about people notable for just one thing, such as Rosa Parks and Gavrilo Princip.  The point of this guideline is that people on the fringes of a famous event do not merit separate articles if they are not the focus of the event.  An example in this case would be Hollie Steel's brother.  He gets quite a few mentions for appearing in the same audition and for his mentoring of his sister.  But he doesn't rate separate coverage because he is not the focus of the reporting. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Worldwide coverage? Looking at the article now, the only sources in the article are from papers based in the United Kingdom.--Otterathome (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We use English language sources by preference as this is the English language Wikipedia. But please see:
 * Hollie Steel, la nueva rival de Susan Boyle - Spain
 * Hollie Steel va-t-elle voler la vedette à Susan Boyle ? - France
 * Hollie Steel macht Susan Boyle Konkurrenz - Germany
 * Állva tapsolt Hollie-nak a közönség a brit „Csillag születik - Hungary
 * Hollie (10) kan stoppe Susan Boyles drøm - Norway
 * HOLLIE, 10 ANNI, NUOVO IDOLO BOOM DEL VIDEO SU YOUTUBE - Italy
 * 蘇珊大媽自塑形象被損 《英國達人》有驚人發現 - China
 * Hollie Steel Emerges As Competition For Susan Boyle On 'Britain's Got Talent' - USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs)
 * Rosa Parks merits an article for being an icon of the civil rights movement. The coverage of her in secondary sources is sustained, persistent over time, and of great length. Her contribution to the history of the United States is enduring and significant. Hollie Steel is a flash-in-the-pan celebrity (a game show contestant for crying out loud) who may or may not attain lasting historical significance. In fact, odds are very strong against it. This is precisely what WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT are about: keeping the encyclopedia from becoming cluttered with biographies of people enjoying their 15 minutes of fame. Ray  Talk 02:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, from BLP1E, "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." Massive difference between Rosa Parks' iconic status in the civil rights movement and a prepubescent game show contestant on an ongoing show.  BGT is not an event, it's a TV reality show and there's a huge difference between an inciting event in the sweeping change of race relations in the US, and Simon Cowell hurting her feelings and it getting reported as a bit of fluff in the news.  This deletion debate should be re-opened after she gets booted off and the discussion resumed then.  We can't tell right now if she's truly a BLP1E or not.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How do we judge significance? Per WP:N, this is not done by asserting our personal feelings.  Notability is established by the extent to which other media cover the topic.  In this case, we have lots of coverage and so the topic is notable.  There's no WP:FLUFF policy which lets you pick and choose. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you just equate Rosa Parks, whose actions had far-reaching consequences for American life and who has been profiled in every school textbook on American history published in the last few decades, with a preteen game show contestant? Seriously? &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 15:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to American icons. I'm saying that it doesn't apply to outstanding British singers who get lots of press coverage.  There's room enough for both and no requirement to delete either. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. You're saying that the Civil Rights Movement was insignificant? (Also, for the record, Rosa Parks's public fame came from one act, but it's hardly the only significant thing she did). This little kid's (single, AFAICT) appearance on a TV talent show is not in the same ballpark, not in the same league, not even in the same sport. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect to the season article, but there's no way this little girl merits an article of her own, and frankly there isn't much of substance to merge. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 out of 8 of those sources mention Susan Boyle in the title, and I'd imagine the rest are all about her appearance in the show. Making it a perfect WP:BLP1E case. If you believe it is an exception to this, then you will find plenty more sources to add to the article.--Otterathome (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You imagine? Sorry, but you're expect to read the article, sources and policies.  Making stuff up doesn't count.  WP:BLP1E does not recommend deletion so there's no case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP1E: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Since the biography currently exists, I read that as "recommending deletion." Incidentally, Rosa Parks is covered by the third paragraph of BLP1E: If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial. - Brian Kendig (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reading is incorrect. Per WP:BLPDEL, "Page deletion should be treated as a last resort".  The equation that WP:BLP1E = deletion is quite mistaken.  If there aren't enough sources for a reasonable article then the obvious alternative, as stated, is merger into the article about the 1E. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that 'merge and redirect' would be an appropriate outcome? You have a point with your comment above about the American Idol participants being in Wikipedia; do you feel there should be a Britain's Got Talent participants article, and would you have any interest in starting it? - Brian Kendig (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are numerous articles for this show per Template:Britain's Got Talent. If this article were merged it might either go into Britain's Got Talent (series 3) or Susan Boyle. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 'keep' and punish for nominating after just 2 hours... rediculous.--Dacium (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a rationale, that's a vote, which is specifically cautioned against WP:JUSTAVOTE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia did not have an article on such a newsworthy person, it would detract from the whole point of this resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotvega (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Keep - Enough with nominating every single BgT performer for deletion. Because the news has already made her an international celebrity, and given her age, she definitely passes WP:N. And per previous precedents, Susan Boyle and Shaheen Jafargholi, this article should stay. --haha169 (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Non-notable gameshow contestant. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Currently, she is making headlines all over the world, there are more than 5 references, and she is destined to continue making headlines for a very long time. Strong keep. Jeremy 22:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral Technically a delete as per Nom as she has simply passed a first round audition for a TV show and had one interview on American TV but nothing else on British TV. Nothing in the article of much interest, just where she comes from and her medical history. If she later 'places' in the contest would then come under WP:MUSICBIO so would require the article to be recreated especially if Simon Cowell tries to exploit her. Can't see harm in keeping it open to save having to recreate it later. I know it is probably against WP:CRYSTAL .Holkingers (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appearing on a talent show does not assert notability. If she gains some more plausible claim to notability, recreate the article, just not now. HJMitchell    You rang?  15:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep For things like this I'd be tempted to say "redirect", but she is notably sourced and whether one likes it or not (and I usually don't) some reality show contestants do meet notability standards before they win. (Or even if they never win)--T. Anthony (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No real notability besides a few articles. She's done nothing else besides BGT (unlike Shaheen Jafargholi) and even then she has not had a profound impact on the show (unlike Susan Boyle. If Hollie Steel deserves an article then so do most of the other contestants on the show. Ixistant (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides? You don't get to ignore the evidence.  Those few articles now number over 330.  Most other contestants on this show get nothing like this.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:10, 3 May 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.