Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jedward


 * 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. There are a lot of weak arguments expressed here boiling down to I like them or I don't like them. The debate has also brought a lot of comments from new users, users who have not edited for a long time, and one sockpuppet. Even doing some heavy discounting however there is a real disagreement here between two reasonable views. Either there is no (or insufficient) notability outside of the X Factor, or alternatively that the coverage is strong enough to merit a separate article. Neither argument has gained a strong consensus here. Given this, no consensus (with perhaps a very slight lean towards keeping), is the only outcome here. This should not prejudice taking another look some months down the line when another, hopefully more dispassionate, decision can be reached. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jedward

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination. This article has been repeatedly switched to and from a redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). That target contains bios of all the X Factor finalists and opinion is divided as to whether an independent article over and above that is justified for this act. Discussion was started at Talk:List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6) but despite this, and despite the fact AfD is not the best venue for discussion redirect vs keep, warring continued with calls for the matter to be settled at AfD. Raising accordingly. I42 (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect. It is the show, the show creator's ability to keep it in the press, and the public unexpectedly voting for the act, which is notable - not the act itself (which is generally regarded as somewhat unremarkable). The act itself is almost a bystander in the whole event - and is certainly no more remarkable than any other of the acts. In addition, no matter how much coverage the performances by this act gain, there is still no independent notability - it is all related to the X Factor. Of course, this act may well go on to attain indpendent notability but it has not done so yet and we cannot assume it will. The inclusion of a bio with all the other act bios is right and appropriate, and a redirect to that page useful for navigation and search. I42 (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Contestants on a reality show who are largely featured in the press. News about them comes everyday, whether it's controversy or not. They do have a singing disability, but have proved popular within audiences, and appear to be the most popular contestants. (Hassaan19 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.17.10 (talk)
 * Do you have any Wikipedia policies which are part of "they are popular with audiences"? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No independent notability. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. They have recieved more media attention than any of the other 2009 contestants, whether you love them or hate them everyone is talking about them, they are in the news everyday. Putting their information on the X Factor page would have that page all cluttered up as their is too much info on them. Reli source —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep. This is a very relevant article and these two are very popular and a Jedward article is very much in line with everything Wikipedia stands for. --Netwhizkid (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. They're crap, but they're famous now and have received lots of coverage, so unfortunately they're notable. I think they're still officially called John & Edward though, so the article should probably be moved.--Michig (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Grimes twins have undoubtedly been one of the most publicised contestants of the X factor not just this year but i previous years. After the show has finished they are very likely to be succesful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinking-pink (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Jedward is fast becoming an autnomous cultural phenomenon outside of the show which spawned it, despite the show still airing. Much as Susan Boyle with Britain's Got Talent. The distinctive style, embracing by public figures of the Jedward myth from New Labour, the constant debate, controversy and even the making of Jedward dolls, the rush to copy the Jeward style of hair which itself has been christened the Jedward, the unending interest from all aspects of the public and media both positive and negative, sets the twins as vastly apart from the X Factor and indeed the other contestants.
 * The relentless media attention to Jedward not only from the tabloids but broadsheets, the bidding wars and offers to sign the twins - from the BBC, Nickleodeon, Disney to name but a few means that Jedward is a cultural movement that is deserving of an independent entry of its own. Even if it does end and the twins don't go on to achieve fame outside of the X Factor or don't fulfil the potential spoken about them for careers in the media the phenomenon that is Jedward deserves to be chronicled for what it was when it happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimmois (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)  — Kimmois (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Unending interest? Every time X Factor or Britain's Got Talent come round there is a flurry of media attention, and it quickly fades. Some of the acts go on to become notable, most do not. We cannot currently predict which way things will go for this two. Wikipedia is not a news site or a fan site. I42 (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question - Isn't it possible to redirect the page to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6), then lock the page to prevent people from moving it back? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  10:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is possible. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No Notability what so ever. Yes there on currently on The X Factor but i think a redirect is in need. --NowIKnow24 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename - should be John and Edward. EddieBernard (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No notability, media coverage from across the board of a talent show does not constitute wiki notability. For me, the article meets notabilty if they have a moderately succesful music career and/or discography, these guys do not. They are only know for their shocking performances they put on every Saturday night, such as the spinechilling Oops!... I Did It Again.PhilOak (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Like it or not, they HAVE enterered the public consciousness - witness the "Jedward 4 Life" and "Jedward 3:16" banners at the recent WWE Raw and Smackdown shows recorded in the UK. TommyDGNR8 (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — TommyDNGR8 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Swift Delete Paper thin "popularity" and presuming and off-the-cuff/tabloid sources. Robbie Williams and David Beckham taking their hairstyles? That might be the worst thing I have seen make it onto Wikipedia. --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Actually, they do deserve a wiki page, as they are fast becoming celebrities. Hardly a day goes by without seeing them in the paper. They will NOT win the X Factor this year, but they are the main highlight of the series. By the way Anomeproject, thank you so much for deleting my original article, and allowing another person to keep theirs. Jemmabond (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - They have received a huge amount of press coverage. Definitely notable (and talentless). Reminds me of the old Kit Kat ad, "You can't sing, you can't play, you look awful ... You'll go a long way!" Snappy (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I wish that they just died, but they're now in the public eye. Much smaller bands have wikipedia articles, and are way less popular than these two. I do feel that it needs to be re-directed and re-written. --milesaaway (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Smaller bands have released albums or met the guidelines for WP:MUSICIAN. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Ditto the above, but they are notable, therefore no problem keeping this article. Seth Whales (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Smaller bands have released albums or met the guidelines for WP:MUSICIAN. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least for the time being: they have achieved a degree of notability beyond that of ordinary talent show contestants, akin to that of the Cheeky Girls. Robofish (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * STRONG Redirect: Don't deserve an article, as they haven't yet been notable for ANYTHING except appearing in a talent show. If they bring out an album, then yes, they can have an article. But for now, that's my opinion. Pic Editor960 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They just got voted out..so there's no need for this article! 86.169.175.255 (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, they're surely one of the biggest UK entertainment industry stories this year. &mdash; PretzelsHii! 00:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, Keep, Keep They established notoreity for sure. But of course it should be renamed John & Edward. Jedward is not acceptable. werldwayd (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE Jedward are only known for appearing on a talent show. Nothing more then that. Unlike someone as Olly Murs who has also appeared on Deal or No Deal in the UK. Why should Jedward be recognised any more then Olly, Danyl, Jamie, Stacey, Lucie, Miss Frank or any other X Factor finalists. Unless they win the competition (gulp) or come runner-up/third place or even get a record contract (sending the company bust) these talentless freak's should not have an article. Take a look at Susan Boyle for instance, she got an article because she was overnight instantly famous worldwide, mainly in the UK AND USA. However, Jedward are really only known in the UK as talentless little creatures who cannot sing. Conay (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, for now, if they have lasting popularity give them an article I think that at the moment as they are still one amongst other finalists they should just be on the X factor finalist page.  If, however, they go on to win or have long-lasting popularity then they deserve an article in their own right.  I think trying to prejudge whether or not reality TV contestants will go on to have long-lasting cultural places is an impossible task. Hesperus (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - they've passed the degree of notability far beyond most other contestants. Dale 19:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, delete, delete! They are only used to sell tabloids, very unencyclopaedic subject. In a few months they will be forgotten. Not every hype deserves a Wikipedia entry! The same things happen to them as they did to Susan Boyle (her notability was also questioned when she auditioned for another talent show). The only difference is that she is actually talented and got to do a record and was known all across the world - Jedward are limited to the UK (as all the contestants are). If they, by some miracle, win the X Factor or still receive media coverege after the show is over, maybe they could have an article. Until then, it's pretty much pointless. -- 12345abcxyz20082009  ( talk ) 20:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably keep - If talent was the issue, then Florence Foster Jenkins would be deleted. I am undecided on the 'independent existence' question, as is posterity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gondooley (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Stone Keep - There has been significant coverage of these 2 over the past couple of weeks, even being apart of a no. 1 single, I would think this constitutes them having their own article. Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 20:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't watch X-Factor but have read several news articles about Jedward who seem to have greater notability than the show. There are hundreds of independent, reliable sources which cover them at length and so they easily pass our notability guideline.  This article - The Jedward industry from the respected Independent gives a good summary of the matter and well demonstrates why this article should not be deleted.  Colonel Warden (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Keep' They've been performing in front of 13 million people per week. Everyone knows who they are, unlike the majority of Youtube celebrities who get their own articles, you fucking morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.75.100 (talk • contribs) — 90.203.75.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Merge to article on X factor UK G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 22:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * " keep" they are awesome and i and all whom i know sincerely enjoy their performences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.41.30 (talk • contribs) — 90.219.41.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep-  clearly, as they are highly amusing if rubbish- but that is beside the point as they are a media phenomenon who have attracted a huge amount of attention. they could potentially be merged with the x factor article, but that would undoubtedly dilute the detail in the jedward article. frankly i hate the deletionist policy of wikipedia. i'm not aware of how having more lightweight articles on wikipedia takes away from the gravitas of the more serious articles- which would be the only legitimate reason for a deletionist policy- am i wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.7.96 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC) — 86.128.7.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong Keep - like it or not, they're really notable now. Deleting this would just be really petty anti-pop culture bias. Coolug (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete and redirect - Notable NOW but in a couple of months time they'll soon fade away from the public attention. Especially as how they're out... Zsaberslash (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Our readership wants to read this article NOW because, as you say, they are notable NOW. The situation in a few months time can be reviewed at that time.  But note that notability does not expire because none of the numerous reliable and independent sources will go away - they can only increase in number. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a news site. I42 (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are lots of things on wikipedia that on one cares about any more. Doesn't mean there's no value in the article continuing to exist - if something was a really big deal for a long enough period of time then I think it has a place on wikipedia. After all, there's no limit on the number of article that can live here. Coolug (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See News articles - especially the opening sentence: "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact" - and NOT #4. I42 (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That sentence is a nonsense because it is not logically possible to verify lasting importance for something which has just happened. The way we do things in practise is better assessed from the main page where we have a section called In the news.  There are currently 5 items there and it is very debatable whether any of them, such as At least 104 people are killed in a mine explosion in Heilongjiang, People's Republic of China, are of lasting importance.  It is impossible to predict what which of these items will be of interest to readers of future centuries and so we should focus upon the readers of today whose needs and interests are verifiable. See Ozymandias and All flesh is grass. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that we do not include material "NOW because [it is] notable NOW" (which is your argument against the 'delete' rationale). Per those links (one an essay, one policy), we only include material when it is demonstrated to be of lasting notability. Therefore the argument has no founding in policy. I42 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We are here because you were edit-warring to keep this material in List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). That article's topic is more emphemeral because it is limited to just a single season of a particular TV show which seems unlikely to have much lasting interest after this year.  But, because you have accepted that the material is acceptable for that article, your argument that it is inappropriate to have a lifetime article on this famous act, doesn't make logical sense because this article will have more longevity than that article.  Colonel Warden (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We are here because the bio at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6) existed already and many people were involved in ping-ponging the separate article back and forth as a redirect. What should have happened is that spinning off of a separate article was propsosed on the original article talk page, but the discussion I started was largely ignored and people called for an AfD in their edits. So, depspite AfD not being for proposing redirects, I raised it. Anyway, I disagree with your above analysis: you are implying that because Jedward are "confined" to a page on X Factor series 6 they will outgrow or outlive it. But we don't know that yet. My view is that when/if they do establish themselves then a separate page would be appropriate, but that hasn't happened yet. Until it does, a redirect is appropriate, and anyone searching for Jedward will be taken to the existing bio. I42 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A number of reliable sources suggest their fame will not be ephemeral, this should take precedent over personal opinions as to whether they will or wont. Only today they have been linked in one publication with an appearance on I'm a Celeb and in another it is suggested they will go on to earn £2,000,000. Petepetepetepete (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect &mdash; must we have an article for every contestant who appears on what, when it boils down to it, is nothing more than a game show? -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 09:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment No, not neccessarily, only those notable enough. Petepetepetepete (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the X Factor finalists do not deserve their own entry until they've released something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perthshire2009 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect, until they do something of note which is not being on the X factor. The grass around feels mighty plasticky, maybe it's all the astroturf. The closing admin needs to look at the amount of SPAs here and discount them. Lock the redirect afterwards to prevent reverting. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Highly notable duo. Two of the most talked about celebrities in the UK and Ireland in the whole of 2009. Petepetepetepete (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect - Right now, there is no way of knowing whether Jedward will sustain their fame after the X Factor so leave it as a redirect for the time being. 666ph666 (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's WP:CRYSTAL to suggest that they wont and to give that as a reason for the article to be deleted. They currently have a high level of fame. Petepetepetepete (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This has got to be my favourite misinterpretation of policy in a long time. Thanks for that! I'm off to write an article about me now, because it would be speculation to say I won't be famous either. I42 (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * but you're not famous now buddy, John and Edward Grimes are... Petepetepetepete (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The assertion is that they are not independently notable - that makes a difference. No-one is doubting they are in the press a lot at the moment but right now they are merely a part of a notable show. They may become notable, but it would be speculation at the moment to say they will. I42 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete- the event is notable, not the artists. Consider creation of an article once they've achieved some notable press beyond this event. Hazir (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is my opinion that this page should be kept. Even though the X Factor Series 6 page contains bios of the aforementioned individuals, John and Edward (JEdward) are fast becoming a phenomenon outside of the show and are going to be well known in their own right. Whilst some people may disagree, I feel it appropriate that this page be saved from deletion Dean Sharpe (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I would keep for now, until their long-term notablility is known. I came here to find out what all the fuss was about, so others will too. EAi (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per heavy coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Enough coverage to warrant their own article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, accelerating Google News hits, accelerating page views with 5300 page views of the article on Nov 23, the most recent data point available. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Love them or hate them, they are one of the most discussed topics at the moment. Maybe in the future they'll vanish without a trace, but for now they are certainly notable. Plus, so many other talent show contestants have pages with less media attention/notability. American Idol finalists get pages made for them as soon as they make the final rounds, but these guys have probably recieved more press attention than any 6th place American Idol contestant has. (Kyleofark (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Keep Definately one of the biggest media stories of the year. John and Edward are become very famous, very fast.  Other contestants have not been as popular, nor do we know as much about them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.195.108 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 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.