Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idol Gives Back (2nd 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 Snowball Keep as per unanimous and overwhelmingly positive consensus, which has very quickly rejected the idea that these particular episodes do not meet this website's threshold for notability. Plus, the article has references to major media sources. A bold non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Idol Gives Back
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Delete - whilst some episodes of television series are independently notable, this set of episodes is not. What we appear to have here is a short passage about the differences from regular episodes of the programme followed by and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of sponsors and participants. There is no out-of-universe context that indicates that these episodes are more notable than any other American Idol installments. As well as lacking WP:NOTABILITY, the important aspects of the events appear to have been covered at American Idol, American Idol (season 6) (specifically American Idol (season 6)), American Idol (season 7), American Idol (season 9) and List of American Idol episodes. The surplus here is mostly fluff. SplashScreen (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPLIT and WP:SPINOFF for why and how duplication of content is normal and acceptable. Anarchangel (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliably sourced articles passes both WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE. Aspects (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:EPISODE is a style guideline, so whether it passes that or not is rather irrelevant. Of course it contains reliable sources - American Idol will be covered by reliable sources just for being American Idol. What we're here to ascertain is whether these episodes are particularly notable due to coverage that goes above and beyond that of other installments. It does not. SplashScreen (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Passes" was perhaps not the best possible wording, but EPISODE shows some reasoning on the subject of Notability. I do not believe that "'particularly notable" is a requirement anywhere for anything. Anarchangel (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (response to SplashScreen) The reason I used WP:EPISODE is because you referenced it when you added the notability tag, . I would have simply said it passed WP:GNG, had I not seen that edit. Aspects (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG through significant coverage in reliable sources. Till 07:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See above. Nobody is claiming that the episodes are not notable, just that they aren't notable enough to receive their own article. SplashScreen (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough sources to establish notability, too long to merge. Articles on episodes are allowed when the episode has sufficient coverage. I'm unfamiliar with the idea of "notable but not notable enough for Wikipedia" which appears to contradict WP:N. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me - although information can be notable, it is almost always not notable for individual Wikipedia articles. The notable information here is "three episodes of American Idol were called Idol Gives Back, which donated money to charity" - this belongs under the notable banner of List of American Idol episodes. The rest is, by and large, indiscriminate cruft. There is a distinction between something being notable and it being independently notable. SplashScreen (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "notable banner"? What does that even mean? Thermonuclear explosion then, is not independently notable, because it is only what an Atomic bomb does? Anarchangel (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man. I mean in the sense that The Becoming (Grey's Anatomy) is not notable, but Grey's Anatomy (season 4) is. The same argument applies here. SplashScreen (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be specific, it is an Argumentum ad absurdum. My point was that comparisons are not enough to eliminate notability. You would have to go back in time and stop CBS, NBC, ABC News, etc, from writing those stories. Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you believe so, you have applied it poorly. The reason this subject is notable is not because it is an episode of a TV show, but because it is an episode which has received substantial independent coverage from many mainstream media outlets.  Had that particular episode of Grey's Anatomy received similar independent coverage, I would likewise deem it to pass the GNG independent of the parent show.   Ravenswing   20:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - The closing administrator may wish to read this. SplashScreen (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Early close as Keep at last AfD with 11 Keep votes to 1 Delete (which is three of a trio of warning signs of WP:SNOW, although the closer did not mention this). This article now is cited by sources like CNN, ABC News, MSNBC, Variety, and USA Today, as well as a slew of other independent reliable sources. ->humor-> I should mention that I have a vested interest in this article closing as Keep, as I like to think about American Idol and the implications of its existence as little as possible; if it is Kept again I will be less likely to have to look at another deletion nomination. Anarchangel (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep nearly unanimous prior AFD (admittedly an old one), loads of good sources, an audience of millions, and 185 MILLION raised for charity (more than many countries' GDP), indicating substantial real-world impact. I'm not even an Idol fan but frankly, it's kind of ridiculous seeing something like this listed for AFD among the garage bands and kids' webcomics... TWICE.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm in much the same boat as Starblind. I personally dislike Idol rather strongly, but this is keepworthy.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: American Idol is a redolent heap of flaming suck, but there is no question whatsoever that this particular segment meets the GNG going away, and as such, other subordinate notability criteria or style guidelines are irrelevant. Frankly, I don't know what the nom was thinking with a claim that it fails WP:N, and strongly suggest that he reviews it to gain a clearer understanding of its provisions.  To quote: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline ..." To quote the GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."  I fancy that MTV News, TV Guide, MSNBC, Variety and CNN would constitute reliable sources in damn near anyone's book.   Ravenswing   18:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Plenty of reliable sources to meet GNG. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This isn't just a series of episodes, its also a charitable campaign. Statυs  (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per nominator (Nobody is claiming that the episodes are not notable), who possibly wanted a WP:Merge discussion instead.   Th e S te ve   06:40, 3 July 2012 (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.