Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollie Steel (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   no consensus. I'd suggest that this doesn't need to come round again, those advocating deletion would put their energies to better use by pushing for a merge. Flowerparty ☀ 00:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hollie Steel
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS, also a WP:MUSICBIO failure. Otterathome (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a news item, not a long term piece of knowledge. It's a perfectly good news item, but it's still trivia, and as such has no place in an encyclopedia. This is no judgement on Hollie Steel, it's a matter of "what is knowledge". 19:00, 3 June 2009 (GMT+1)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpgcwiki (talk • contribs)
 * The topic is not trivial as it has sparked action by the UK government. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ... which belongs in a discussion at the BGT page. Steel may have been a victim, but that does not make her notable. I42 (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and or Merge to the appropriate series. As an aside, seriously, a third AFD in the space of a month? Really? You couldn't have just opened a merge discussion in on the article's talk page? Umbralcorax (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "couldn't have just opened a merge discussion in on the article's talk page?" There is already a small discussion of about whether there should be a merge and one on whether or not it should be deleted. I won't vote yet, i would leave it a day or two to see what media attention she might receive in the dailies. A day after the competition has ended is perhaps too soon for a discussion on whether or not it should be deleted, especially considering Cowell's record of signing up the finalist. Uksam88 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable enough to be documented in the wikipedia, the extent of media coverage regarding the subject available also indicates the article should be kept. --Da Vynci (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. How does "one of ten finalists on the third series of the ITV reality show" imply notability? The subject obviously fails WP:MUSICBIO, falls under WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. — Rankiri (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per our guideline notability is established "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This topic has massive coverage in such sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic, and I'm not at all sure that a losing contestant of a reality show can be seen as encyclopedic and historically notable. WP:N itself makes it clear that media sensationalism should not be used as a sole determinant of one's notability: It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute...However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event. WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS provide much more specific and relevant instructions and the subject happens to fail all three of them. — Rankiri (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge into Britain's Got Talent (series three). She has no notibility. If she has a page then why hasn't Stavros Flatley got one? Or 2 Grand? Or Shaun Smith? She was one of the finalists who got nowhere and doesn't look like she will be getting anywhere anytime soon. She is 10 years old and has proved that she would be unable to perform frequently and I doubt she'll get a record deal. When nothing happens with her in two months time, it will be deleted, so why not get rid of it now? It doesn't even contain any info that couldn't be explained in BGT Series 3 page. I think a list of BGT Series 3 finalists page should be created (a bit like The X Factor contestants one) and Hollie can be in there.
 * These other finalists do have articles, as may be seen from the blue links. Making this highly notable topic a red link like your proposed destination would be absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Look more carefully. One is to a redirect to the parent article, one is to a DAB page (there is no actual relevant article) and the other is to an article also up for AfD. I42 (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have an account but I am not logged in atm so I would still like you to consider this statement even though it is by an IP user 83.71.56.210 (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for now, despite the fact I hope we can write a biography on her later. Currently, she is notable only for her appearance on the show, and so any pertinent information should be included in the articles on the show. If she gets signed, releases an album, has a film made about her or something, then we can reconsider. J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic is already notable for other matters such as her medical history and return to school which have been headline items. This third party coverage demonstrates clear notabilty for all aspects of this person, not just her performances. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP: The story is not over for Miss Steel. Many who lost have gone onto fame and fortune and deserve to have their story in our wiki. --Dane Sorensen (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Dane Sorensen
 * Yes, those who go onto fame and fortune do. Has Hollie? No. Will she? Possibly. The article can be recreated if and when she becomes known for something outside of the show. J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Making predictions is a bad thing.--Otterathome (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete She will most likely be forgotten in a month. No notabilityJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability does not expire but, in any case, it is already over a month and her notability continues to climb. Yesterday, the cabinet minister  responsible for culture and the arts commented specifically, "She gave a fantastic performance in the final..."


 * Delete as I said in AFD#1, this is a textbook case of BLP1E. She is not notable for anything other than being the object of media attention for one day a few weeks ago, then again for crying on stage. Unlike Susan Boyle, she isn't a human interest story. Unlike Diversity, she didn't win. Unlike Julian Smith, she didn't even place. And unlike Shaheen Jaffacake, she wasn't even known about until her audition. And finally, she's ten years old. We should have as few articles about minors as possible, and the articles we do have about children need to have airtight assertions of notability. This is not. Sceptre (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think your ethnic slur helps your argument in any positive way.  R ad io pa th y  •talk• 01:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...there's an ethnic slur there? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Shaheen Jaffacake...?" 83.71.35.103 (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a nickname that me and my sister coined because we couldn't remember his last name, only that it began with "Jaf". Sceptre (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's no more an ethnic slur than calling me "J Milby". J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe not an ethnic slur per se, but it seems like you're making fun of him, or calling him "Jaffacakes" because a Middle Eastern name is "too hard to pronounce", or whatever.  R ad io pa th y  •talk• 15:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can easily be seen as an ethnic slur. Editor explination shows good faith. I suggest all editors should be more careful in future without saying what was said was wrong. Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP: This little girl is EXTRAORDINARY and already famous across the globe. Worldedixor (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BGT is famous across the world. She is not famous in any other context therefore this is a case of WP:1E. I42 (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:MUSIC #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition."  Passes WP:NOTNEWS: we're not talking cat-up-a-tree stuff here.  Passes WP:1E with a lot of international media coverage.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•


 * Placed would mean they came in first or second or third. Being in the finals does not mean they placed. It means they were a finalist, nothing more, nothing less, which does not meet criterion #9.-- Terrillja talk  06:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BGT is a major music competition since when?--Otterathome (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A show that's broadcast to the entire UK and seen by millions of people is major, yes. This isn't a local church cantata or something like that.  R ad io pa th y  •talk• 00:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, from WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEVENT:
 * Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic... If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
 * The way I see it, this little girl is no Lee Harvey Oswald. — Rankiri (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete nothing more notable than other finalists. --Saigon punkid (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We have links and articles for the other finalists, such as Susan Boyle with whom the world's media have repeatedly made direct comparisons. The precedent is therefore clearly that we should maintain this material rather than deleting it and leaving a gaping hole. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Susan Boyle gained more coverage but this is anyway moot - she was placed in the top 3, Steel was not. I42 (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Radiopathy. We can revisit this in the future if need be. A merge and redirect would be my second choice. Johnleemk | Talk 05:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Britains's Got Talent Season 3 Most of the references are tabloids, definitely not the most reliable sources, and what has been stated by them was later refuted by the subject of the article, see the talkpage now. I would support a few sentences in the contest article on her, but moving her entire article over there would be WP:UNDUE. If she later goes on to make a career in music and meets our criteria for general notability or music, I would hold no prejudice against recreating the article, but at this point we are grasping at straws to talk about what she will become. I do not however see her as meeting the criteria for inclusion at this time.-- Terrillja talk  06:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. She does not fail NOT#NEWS but she does fail BLP1E. I don't consider BGT a 'major music competition' for the purposes of WP:MUSIC. That said, she quite obviously should have won. MickMacNee (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Britain's Got Talent (Series 3). She isn't notable besides her BGT participation. Unlike some people that have played small roles in TV shows appeared in a number of ads, or won a National Dancing Competition beforehand. Also, her placement is not high enough to qualify per WP:MUSIC.-- Alasdair 11:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Quite clearly a case of WP:BLP1E. It's quite possible she'll gain inependent notability in the future but WP:CRYSTAL makes it quite clear that has no bearing right now. I42 (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP1E is not appropriate, being for "low profile" people, not artists whose performances generate headlines around the world. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The only reason she is notable is due to the current media attention surrounding her performance in the semi-final. Once the news has blown over, the article will no longer be notable. 84.67.89.61 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 16:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no choice under policy, she is notable for a single event, you don't get an article for that. I would rather wait a month and see if she gets any further attention or not, but we don't have a procedure for deferring judgement of AFDs, so we'll just have to undelete the article if she does get the additional attention required. --Tango (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per WP:MUSICBIO #9 - Has won or placed in a major music competition. This is a talent contest which is a bit quibbly but deleting is not needed here. No prejudice for restoring once independent notability is secured. -- Banj e  b oi   23:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep, She's going on a national tour so will undoubtably meet our WP:GNG with rounds of media coverage whether or not she continues a singing career. -- Banj e  b oi   02:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This national tour would be the Britain's Got Talent tour, of course. I42 (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Britain's Got Talent (series three) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.217.69 (talk • contribs)


 * K E E P !!! YEARS WILL PASS AND PEOPLE WILL NEED A REFERENCE, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AND OF WIKIPEDIA. THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE LIKE OR DON'T LIKE THE CHARACTER, IT'S SIMPLY A REFERENCE. PLEASE USE COMMON SENSE AND ACT ACCORDINGLY !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osantaella (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect Pitiful argument. Where's the reference to the little girl who got all the way up to the final in the third season of Starsearch, but then lost?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 05:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect → Britain's Got Talent (series 3), which is where all these finalists should remain until we see what they do next. pablo hablo. 09:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree in spirit but we should treat each seperately as they may have prior and secondary notability issues besides their reality TV fame. -- Banj e  b oi   00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep A disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DEL. The person is making news yet again today for two reasons as the regulator OFCOM has got involved and the government says that it is going to act.  This was on the BBC Radio just now and it is easy to find continuing news items from the last 24 hours which headline this person with big splash photos, e.g. this and that  There is no case to answer here as deletion is quite inappropriate.  The proper process has not been followed as the nominator has not made the slightest attempt to discuss the matter at the article's talk page.  The claims of policy support BLP1E and NOT NEWS are both quite bogus: the first because this person is not low profile and the second because this is not a routine news story like a weather forecast or traffic report.  This topic is a summary of major news items which have had worldwide coverage. It is clearly our policy to incude such and our readership expects it. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I FULLY AGREE with your Speedy Keep (this is not an additional vote) - I also want to add that Hollie is being recognized as notable in the US and the UK and interviewed on several major networks. Worldedixor (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Britain's Got Talent has been hugely successful this year and is being recognised as notable worldwide. Like him or not, Simon Cowell knows what he's doing. Is Hollie Steel independently notable? Not yet. She may well have a bright future and when she does we will have an article about her then. I42 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking duplicate vote.--Otterathome (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A month after the first nomination, and back here once again. Her age is unique for any performer.  She has plenty of coverage in third party new media.  She meets all requirements for an article.    D r e a m Focus  09:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Of a disruptive nomination. Returning an article to AfD over and over, and repeating ad nasuem the same delete arguments over and over, simply because one is unhappy that it was not deleted on previous occasions, is the worst sort of repeat disruptive nomination and meets the definitions of WP:POINT.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was one AFD a month ago that was no consensus, it seems sensible to me to hold another AFD once the situation has developed more to see if there is a consensus now. (The 2nd AFD was immeadiately withdrawn since the nomination was a simple mistake.) --Tango (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - still, a disruptive nom; the only thing that's apparent here is that the subject's notability ihas increased, not diminished, since the first nom. The second nom, BTW, was not "a simple mistake", but rather a blatant disregard for WP:BEFORE, and like this one, demonstrates more of a bias against the subject of the article than any regard for Wikipedia policy.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•
 * Of course the 2nd was a mistake. The nominator thought she had been eliminated when she hadn't, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Whether it would have been a legitimate nomination or not, had it been correct, is irrelevant, it still shouldn't be counted as a previous AFD since no discussion took place. The subject's notability has increases, but her potential notability has decreased. During the last AFD she was a potential TV talent contest winner, during this one she is not. Whether or not you think we ought to keep or delete articles based on potential notability, that is still a change that the nominator good, in good faith, consider worth reopening the discussion. --Tango (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment 1st AfD was closed as "keep" on May 12, 2009 (3 weeks ago). 2nd AfD on May was closed as "keep" on May 27, 2009 (9 days ago). 1st AfD was and was modified from "keep" to "no consensus" on May 24, 2009 (12 days ago) after a DRV disputed that 1st closure. Now we have a 3rd AfD within 3 weeks of previous AfDs and the DRV, all repeating the same arguments from the previous deletion discussions. 3 actions in 3 weeks? Sorry, but I see the continued efforts to delete this article as as disruptive even with the greatest of good faith in the repeated nominations, as repeated nominations of an article in any editor's refusal to accept the decisions of earlier discussions runs totally contrary to the POLICY standards set forth in WP:CONSENSUS. Sure, consensus can change... but in 3 weeks?? Nope. No sale. No offense intended, but it seems too much like pointed gaming to suit me. Common sense and civility would seem to indicate that allowing an article to be improved, improves the project as a whole... specially as her notabilty continues to grow {and not diminish as is claimed). All one needs do is check the news. Open a new AfD in 3 months... not 3 weeks. Sheesh.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It was a mistake then, it is a mistake now. Worldedixor (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking duplicate vote .--Otterathome (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * - Striking duplicate phrase. Those are not duplicate votes. Everyone knows that one person one vote.  My ONE vote is expressly and unmistakably for SPEEDY KEEP.Worldedixor (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have edited your previous contributions (against guidelines) to make it appear that you did not make multiple !votes, but it is clear from the article history that when Otterarhome made his comment you had explicitly made three separate !votes. Since then, and after you were reminded this was not allowed, you have made a further new comment below which has the appearance of a fourth !vote. Your opinion is as valid as any other but might I suggest it is likely to be discounted by the closing admin if you continue to ignore policy. I42 (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find your lack of faith disturbing. As this is not a vote, repeat comments are quite permissible and you have made repeated comments yourself.  Please see Tu quoque. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course multiple comments are allowed - but, as I said, multiple !votes are not. You only get to recommend keep/delete/merge/whatever once, unless you strike your previous recommendation. There is no lack of good faith here; the multiple !votes were correctly struck, that was partially undone by the original editor, so the policy has been more clearly explained. This is a lively debate which is getting somewhat passionate so let's try to comment on the article and not the credentials of the contributors. I42 (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My position is that we should remove all digressions about the nature of !votes now that this enthusiatic editor has shown good faith and willingness to amend their comments to avoid confusion. Finger-pointing and scolding in a pseudo-officious way does not assist amicable discussion.  Please remove all such irrelevant templates and digressions to assist in the smoothing over of this matter per WP:COOL. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yes, she is a very talented little girl, but the fact that she has appeared on the show and will be in the tour does not make her notable enough to have an article dedicated to her. This article should be deleted, and perhaps re-opened in years to come if she is successful in her career, should she continue to perform. For now, though, she is not notable and therefore the article should be deleted. ElphaPearl (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable gameshow contestant. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I already voted for STRONG KEEP''' above. I want to add that when I first heard of Hollie Steele, my FIRST instinct was to look her up in Wikipedia... Keeping the article and improving it would do Wikipedia justice. Worldedixor (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing in WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC that suggests subject is sufficiently notable for an article, and WP:BIO1E rules against whatever notability arises from being an unsuccessful contestant. Wikipedia is not the place for items of ephemeral interest. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are 10 applicable reasons taken from the guidelines that you cite. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
 * 2) "...significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"
 * 3) "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
 * 4) "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."
 * 5) "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."
 * 6) "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."
 * 7) "...as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified."
 * 8) "Has won or placed in a major music competition."
 * 9) "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable"
 * 10) "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions."
 * OK, let's have a look at those points one by one.-- Alasdair 10:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Hollie was given coverage solely due to her BGT performances. No matter how many sources there are it's still a matter of BLP1E.
 * No, some of the coverage relates to other matters such as her remarkable medical history or her doings at school. People are interested her now as a person - they want to know everything about her.  This is not our judgement to make - this is the judgement of independent reliable sources, per our guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. Children have been participating in talent shows around the world for ages. There is nothing that makes her any more significant or interesting.
 * The existence of lasting global coverage for this topic demonstrates that you are mistaken - the matter is clearly considered both significant and interesting. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. I don't see how a Hollie's performances are so historically valuable, considering that there are so many people like her in the past.
 * There are few people like her in the past - I can think of just two Bonnie Langford and Lena Zavaroni. We have ample space for such a handful of entries. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those two are not similar - they went on to have independent fame. When, and only when, Steel does the same, then she should have an independent article. That you can only think of those two is a perfect illustration of why that is so. I42 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. Every talent show contestant has fans during their time in the show. However, it can not be assured that many of them are not brought in during the heat of the moment. It's questionable whether a reasonable niche can be retained in the long run unless there is evidence that suggests that her fanbase is large enough.
 * We do not require exact numbers because there is no formal test. It is a matter of common sense by which we should not delete an article when there is reasonable evidence that there is a significant readership for it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5. Again, there is nothing unique and innovative about a child soprano singing in a talent show, considering the many that have done before her.
 * There are several distinctive features - her serious illness, her tears, her second chance and the resulting ministerial interest. Again, it is not our call to decide such notability - the test is performed by third parties for us who show that the matter is distinctive by their abundant coverage. We are not judges - it is other third parties who have the red buzzers. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6. This also contradicts with BLP1E. Former contestants of other talent shows get articles written due to additional things (i.e. releasing new singles, albums etc.) rather than their time on the show. I don't think Hollie should be an exception.
 * We have explicit guidelines for other shows which say that finalists merit separate articles. This show is clearly of outstanding global interest and so should have deeper coverage than other shows, not less.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7. Hollie's role within BGT won't grow any larger now that this series is finished, not beyond the on coming BGT tour.
 * We already have enough material for a substantial separate article. Folding all this into the show's main article would be diffcult owing to the size of the coverage and the details which are purely related to her, not the show.  Moreover, the tour will generate further coverage, as will the government's actions, which are just starting. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8. I would agree if she placed in the final 3. Finishing off the podium isn't a high enough placement for that to be warrented.
 * There were two levels of reward - outright winner, with its £100K prize, and finalist, with its place on the tour and payments for same. Hollie is in the same place as Susan Boyle - successful finalist.  She seems far more notable than that saxaphone guy, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9. This is probably the most valid statement but considering she doesn't have anything else to vouch for her, Hollie ought to be redirected to the BGT series 3 article.
 * One reason is enough as topics are not required to qualify upon multiple counts. To delete an article, you have to demonstrate that it is completely without merit - a hopeless case. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10. #OK, so she appeared in Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat. But has she played in any roles beyond extremely peripheral ones, such as those kids who accompany the narrator? I'd agree with this had she played something like the child version of Cossette.
 * We already have multiple performances in her separate appearances on BGT which have attracted separate independent coverage. I am not familiar with her other show appearances but they indicate that this is not a one-off - she has a developing career. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, let's agree to disagree then. Since we intepret the guidelines differently. However, point 9 you referred to has a bracket stating the possibility of redirect, and that I disagree with all your other points, I still believe in redirects.-- Alasdair 13:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the proposition put by the nominator is that the article be deleted, lock stock and barrel so that nothing remains - no content, no edit history and no redirection. If other editors were as reasonable as yourself, we would not be having this discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep? Really tough one this- I can see that this will become increasingly common as time goes by. Wikipedia is a kind of imortality and it is certainly true that 'off the podium' people could dissappear without trace. Its difficult at the moment to see that it might be neccesary/realistic to delete a page for someone who is so high profile at present from an encyclopedia which has a seperate page for every underground station in London, yet we SHOULD consider this kind of thing very carefully as we could be setting the precedents for oodles of TV competitions and 9-day-wonder celebrities for the future. Myself I wouldn't have a problem with keeping a page for anyone from such a major competition as BGT, who makes it as far as the roadshow afterwards. If the producers consider it worthwhile keeping such people on the roadshow, they stand a reasonable chance of maintaining/establishing themselves. Although its true that the page could be revived later, I see no harm in keeping the page for a few months- really, if we imagine that a reasonable number of people will want to look at the page in the next two months, then it might as well be there- I do, so imo it should. If we really want to delete the page, its not the end of the world- however I do think we should consider a compromise, such as creating a seperate page for the Roadshow finalists of each season with a small article on each. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A proposal for consensus. There are aparrently quite polarised views here and unless the closing admin sees a strong reason to do otherwise, I imagine this AfD will close No Consensus. Whilst that may be seen "as good as" keep, that will likely result in another AfD a few months down the line especially when, as I suspect, the news coverage dies down and we are all watching the next X Factor instead. But I don't think the views are actually that different - there's the "keep, she's in the press everywhere, she's notable and deserves her own article" argument, and there's the "she's part of Britain's Got Talent's notability and should be covered only as part of that" argument. Both of those arguments accept Wikipedia will cover her in some form, it's more a matter of emphasis and depth of coverage. I suggest we take inspiration from the X Factor articles and:
 * We cover all ten of the finalists with brief biographies, as part of the Britain's Got Talent articles, ideally as a sub-article - as, for example, exists at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5).
 * We make the same assumption that the X Factor articles do: top three are inherently notable; the remainder have to go on to achieve independent notability for articles of their own (remember - there's an X Factor tour, too - that doesn't count!).
 * All finalists which do not have their own article redirect to the biography list.
 * That way we will preserve at least the bulk of this article plus all the other finalist articles (which have either gone, or look virtually certain to be deleted) whilst keeping within the context of BGT. When independent notability of sufficient significance is established (which to me implies participation in some notable event on their own merits - not because of BGT), then it is time to spin off an additional, separate article. (Eg: Hollie Steel lands a performance on the West End or has a hit record - independently notable; Hollie Steel turns on the Christmas lights because she's that girl off the telly - not notable; Hollie Steel signs up for a record deal - not yet notable but an indication she will be soon!).
 * Is there any mood to agree? I42 (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Be bold and start the article with what you presently have. Ask admins to userfy any that need that and then allow the tour to come and go. Once that winds down look to appropriate merge discussions for any that still sow little promise. -- Banj e  b oi   11:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I welcome I42's constrcutive attitude but must beg to differ. The proposal is to have a rule but we don't do rules here because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  Notability is not a matter of nice tidy rules.  It is essentially driven by sources.  If the world decides to notice a topic and write about it then it thereby becomes notable for our purposes because this is good evidence that the world wants to read about the topic and that we have good sources to summarise.  This is the case for Hollie and so that's that.  If this spoils some nice neat pattern that some editors wish to impose upon this material then that's too bad.  Notice the way in which the main article Britain's Got Talent (series 3) has been constrained by the pattern-making attitude into a series of dry tables.  These are almost unreadable and are not the style of article which we are supposed to produce.  The current Hollie Steel article seems better in that it has a proper narrative structure and is of a digestible size.   The tabular format may be useful in helping readers navigate this material but it should lead to proper articles which can actually be read. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources are about these people/groups as BGT contestants, not as performers in their own right. Thus, if we are to consider them, it would seem most logical to consider them as BGT finalists- IE, collectively. If the subjects become notable in their own right, information about what they have achieved since the show can be included in a separate article- a standard biography. J Milburn (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden - I might not have expected full agreement, but I didn't really expect that rationale. I am not proposing rules - I am proposing we try to have an accepted framework which we reach by consensus - much like other similar events have. This seems to be exactly in the spirit of Wikipedia, where consensus is the preferred approach. This framework could not override existing policy, and would not be set in stone, but it could lead to a way forward which has majority support. I continue to believe that the deletion of this article would be correct under policy (and think that is likely to happen either now or in the near future - unless independent notability ensues) but I see the proposal as an acceptable alternative. It is one which the X Factor articles have already established so this is hardly a radical approach. I42 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep keep as there are definite sources and the repeat use of AFD until the outcome wanted is reached is slightly bewildering. Nja 247 15:13, 7 June 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.