Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Smith (saxophonist)


 * 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.  Jamie ☆ S93  15:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Julian Smith (saxophonist)

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

WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. No recording contract. Otterathome (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

KEEEEP HE IS AMAZING   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie12344 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe that even if we delete this article now, will need to be re-created soon. Very popular now, recording deal and album will soon materialise.Will be similar to Escala_(group). --Sulfis (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whilst I disagree with User:Sulfis above (WP:CRYSTAL), the X Factor series established a precedent that the top three finalists are sufficiently notable for their own articles. I42 (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, not notable outside the competition yet. I fail to see finalists as inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; Simon is going after him for money. We know that albums are going to be released, an notability will be clear soon after we delete it. This is Susan Boyle and Jafargholi all over again. --haha169 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable and I think instead of deleting it we should try to improve it. Spiderone (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Article passes WP:Notability with Google News showing 880 results for "julian smith saxophonist", with more to come I am sure.  Article simply needs improvement, and more than a day to do it.   ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per above just like ♫ Cricket02 (talk) says above i belive it passes WP:Notability. Kyle  1278  20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete until we have some solid evidence of notability outside of the show. Jafargholi was kept because he has also had some notworthy acting roles, Boyle was a real "special case", so it's not fair to comapare to them. Though he was placed, third place on BGT doesn't seem to carry much weight- Johnston (last year's third place) was not considered notable until the record deal was confirmed- the precedent here is to delete until some third party notability comes up, not assume that they're notable because they will probably get themselves a deal. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - one of top 3 finalists in a series watched by 18.5m, and sufficient press coverage (as per ♫ Cricket02 above) make Julian Smith sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article, in my view. (And yes, I think we may well see a recording deal from him in the next few weeks - although I concede that is crystal-ball-gazing). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree with User:I42 above --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly keep. Incredibly talented saxophonist with an original song choice, capable of molding the most unlikely songs to fit his style. Sure to be heard more of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.227.212 (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep he did place third, getting almost as many votes as Susan Boyle, but there needs to be a better assertion of notability. And I think that there is a strong possibility he'll get signed onto Syco anyway. Sceptre (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability outside of Britain's Got Talent. There's a lot of WP:CRYSTAL going on in this AFD. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep – The reliable sources in the article show at least a minimal degree of notability. Merging can always be discussed outside of AFD. MuZemike 23:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOWBALL doesn't apply here as this is far from unanimous. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Speedy Keep. I don't know why but in articles for the USA talent shows, all finalists (12 in all) are notable, but for the English programmes of this type all but the champion get deleted (see Articles for deletion/Diana Vickers). By US guides here ALL finalists are notable. Let's stop demeaning UK talent please. --Triwbe (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Joolz Gianni easily passes WP:BAND. --Triwbe (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree There needs to be some standardization of guidelines when it comes to finallists in ALL notable competitions.   In addition to my comments above, I believe this individual ALSO passes WP:Music #9 Has won or placed in a major music competition.  (I interpret this to mean talent competition as well when the finalist is a musician).  ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything, the guidelines should be made more conservative, so that they are inline with our 1 event guidelines. As a universal guideline, that should come before the WikiProject guidelines that relate to one TV show. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that too. However, in this case, I cite from WP:BLP1E that If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.  It is my personal opinion that at least the top 3 in any of these competitions to be a large individual role, where millions upon millions of votes have been cast, and people will want to come here to learn more about the finalists.  (Nice to be on the opposite side of an argument with you for once my friend). :) ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking that! I can't believe I still argue to delete these- I love BGT, and I really enjoy writing articles about the contestants. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment to X-Factor/Idol WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS comments, those shows are musical shows, being a finalists makes them pass criteria 9 of WP:MUSIC. BGT is a general talent show, not a musical competition. And if you hadn't noticed, most finalists of those musical competitions have released at least one single or album. The 'oh he's so good and popular, he's bound to get a recording contract' is a big WP:CRYSTAL comment.--Otterathome (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As the subject has already recorded professionally, talk of WP:CRYSTAL is quite mistaken. Per WP:BEFORE, please research topics before bringing them to AFD.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Otterathome. WikiProject_Idol_series is not WP:OTHERSTUFF, it is the application of existing wikiconsensus on what is notable on an existing highly comparable subject. It more relevant because it has been developed for this exact situation, unlike WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:1E which are for more generic cases. Such guides exist in specific sports, arts and science bios as well. --Triwbe (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus was for articles on finalists in musical competitions, not general talent competitions.--Otterathome (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm an American, but series 3's gotten so much press, people here are watching it on Youtube, and at least in my case, turning to Wikipedia for information on major contestants, including Julian Smith.  I personally think for notable contestants on notable shows, they ought to have an article at least temporarily.  Notability can be a transient thing in these cases, so why can't such an article if the contestant ends up fading away?  We are not set in paper.  Deletionists seem to think we've got to make the decision to delete right away.  How does that increase the utility of Wikipedia?  —Tox (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because that is not what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not here to showcase the current "thing"- it is not a newspaper, it is not a gossip magazine. It's an encyclopedia. Yes, we're quicker to cover things than other encyclopedias, but that does not mean we should be inclined to cover things that should not be covered. Notability is not transient- fame is transient, notability is not. J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does cover current news - just see the main page for its section In the News which routinely covers current events.
 * Did you even read what I said? "Yes, we're quicker to cover things than other encyclopedias, but that does not mean we should be inclined to cover things that should not be covered." So, sure, we cover elections before paper encyclopedias, but there's no need to have articles on gossip, to have articles about local news stories or have a whole article on a single event (unless that event is particularly notable). J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not local news, it is global. And it's not a single event - it's multiple events.  There is not the slightest case to answer here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was replying to Tox, attempting to demonstrate the flaws in his arguments generally, rather than talking specifically about Smith. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Highly notable topic for which many sources are available. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, much of this seems to focus on his recent career but his discography seems to date from 2001 and he seems to have performed with several notable people. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm wrong, this seems to suggest he has been around since 1993. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  18:32, 6 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.