Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leona Lewis on The X Factor


 * 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 owing to no consensus, with a slight tilt towards deletion. Note, some comments asking for both delete and merge were contradictory. Strongly suggest running this AfD again, clearly reminding editors to ask for only one of the following: merge, keep, delete or redirect'''. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Leona Lewis on The X Factor

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

This article is pointless and offers extraneous information that a user needn't know. It is sloppily written and presented, and to date, has only been edited by one user alone, offering fanatic and sometimes subjective content in the article Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Well of course I am going to disagree.  It does not offer 'pointless' information (I'd argue that no information is pointless, but that's beside the point).  Leona Lewis is now an international star and many people are interested in her. I wrote it as many of the details about her  career-start on The X Factor have been misrepresented in other press articles, and then promulgated over and over again - by going to the source (ie the quotes from the programmes themselves) and setting them out in this article, I hoped to help stop that and to give some sense of her progress through the competition.  On Leona's YouTube videos people have asked questions to which I have tried to give the answers in the article, such as why was she wearing red poppy on the 11 November show, how many standing ovations did Simon Cowell give (apparently he never gives them on American Idol) and so on.  I really do feel strongly that there is a call for an article like this - that's why I have spent hours writing it.


 * I'm gutted that you think it's badly presented - I spent a lot of time trying to work out the best way to deal with the shows, judges comments, songs sung etc. As for sloppy writing, well that's why I was hoping a collaborative encyclopaedia would help make it better.


 * And it's only been in main space for a couple of days and then with an 'in use' tag for a few hours this morning as I added inline citations as requested. So it's not that surprising it hasn't been edited.


 * And just because I'm a fan doesn't make me a bad person. I want people to help me make the article better, that's all. Leonapedia (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinion the article as it currently stands has some POV and original research issues but they are not so intrinsic to its structure that they could not be fixed. The individual in question is clearly notable and information on this stage in their career should definitely be included in any encyclopaedia that covers her. Having said that, personally I think the level of detail here is excessive - it is largely based on primary sources indicating that Wikipedia is giving the topic a greater level of coverage than the reliable secondary sources on which an article should usually be based. I think the topic can be sufficiently covered in Leona Lewis and The X Factor (UK series 3) both of which already include some of the content of this page but that's really an editorial decision not for AfD. Guest9999 (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete With all due respect, Leonapedia, Wikipedia is not a medium for putting right information that is presented in the media. It is not for addressing questions posed by users on YouTube, nor is Wikipedia for serving the interests of fans. Don't get me wrong, I am also a huge fan of Leona, and think being a fan is certainly not a bad thing. But we must remember that this is an encyclopedia, offering factual, sparing and necessary information. The main Leona Lewis article is deemed sufficient as an entry for her and we need not go into the very specifics of what happened on the show, week in, week out. Apologies for any offence caused. It's not personal :) Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But the factual aspect is exactly what I'm about! Mistakes are made in other articles covering her, and if we get it right here, when people come to Wikipedia as a source (as they do) they will get the correct information at least. Also, I pulled together all the programme references, offcial website nots about her etc so that people can go straight to the contemporary sources rather than having to google them.


 * Also, couldn't disagree more that we have to offer sparing information. Where on earth does it say this? I believe quite the opposite, in fact - we're a paperless encyclopaedia, so why not embrace it - use the potential of the web to make the most ginormous encyclopaedia ever. I wrote the article because I came looking for something like this and found nothing.  And it's an extra to her article, not a replacement - surely all enhancements are a good thing?  I quite take on board the criticism of the non-subjectivity, and was hoping that another editor or editors would beat the fanboyness out of the article, as clearly I can't see too objectively myself - but please not to ditch it altogether.  I really do believe there is a call for this article, even if it has to be pruned a lot.


 * And lastly, who decides what is 'necessary information'? That's a very scary concept, for all sorts of reasons. Leonapedia (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/Delete Scrub the week by week details, along with the other things based on primary sources because that article already exists and if there is anything left that is useful it should be merged into Leona Lewis. Jim Miller (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/Delete, leaving out the week-by-week details, as per Jim Miller's comments above. -- The Anome (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinion The one thing I will say in favour of a separate article like this, is that Lewis, as her main page correctly states, "has had the most successful launch of any television talent show contestant ever". Many industry professionals say she is the most talented reality television contestant ever to emerge. Her winning song on The X Factor is a world record breaker. A case might be made that her journey is unique and can notably be expanded upon, but whether that is enough to keep the page as it currently stands is a different matter. ~ smb 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into The X Factor (UK series 3); seealso exists, ya know! Sceptre (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete after Merge of any adequately sourced relevant material into The X Factor (UK series 3) and Leona Lewis. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge any useful info to either Leona's page or X Factor. CRocka05 (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge then delete, per User:CRocka05. Bob Amnertiopsis ChitChat Me!  01:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subarticles like this are appropriate when detail approaches a certain length, and given the prominence of the performer and the show I don't feel there's any reasonable doubt regarding the notability of the content. Everyking (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Thank-you Everyking. As I said on the Leona Lewis article talk page, I made this a separate article as I felt to have this much detail on the Leona Lewis page would unbalance it, as necessarily everything on that page is covered in fairly sparse detail as there is so much to cover. I asked for help in making Leona Lewis on The X Factor a better page on that article's talk page.
 * I would like to add that I think User:Wiki edit Jonny's nomination of this article for deletion, although maybe not made in bad faith, is perhaps a little vindictive in its absolute trashing of all I have done. A self-admitted fan of Leona, he made no attempt to improve the article, just summarily decided it was rubbish and had to go - see this edit summary when he removed a link to the article from the Leona Lewis page. Non-legitimate?  Says who?  Says Wiki Edit Jonny, who seems to be showing ownership of the article. Then he ploughs straight in to delete it, saying it is "pointless", it "offers extraneous information that a user needn't know", "it is sloppily written and presented" and that "to date, has only been edited by one user alone".
 * I answered those points above when I was stung by the nomination and the heavy-handed criticism within it. But I have been thinking this over and would like to add this:
 * 1) It may be pointless in Wiki edit Jonny's opinion, but I can assure him that many other people disagree with him. As we have all the space in the world on Wikipedia, why not have long, detailed sub-articles that expand and complement the Leona Lewis page? Leona Lewis is a world class artist. She is going to be performing at the closing ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. As of February, before her huge success in America and the latest date for which I would find information  her page was the 845th most visited on Wikipedia.  It is bound to be a lot higher now. People clearly want to know about her. So why take out information on her?  I just can't understand it.
 * 2)The assertion that it "offers extraneous information that a user needn't know" and his later submission that Wikipedia should only be concened with "sparing and necessary information" needs challenging. It is SO far from what I understand Wikipedia to be about. I don't know where he got that idea from, but to me to say things like that is not so dissimilar to suppressing information and censorship.  And, as I said before, who decides?  Do we all have to bow to Wiki edit Jonny's dictat?
 * 3) Okay, it could do with some pruning, but is it really "sloppily written and presented"? Or is that just Wiki edit Jonny's impression of it, given that he seems to want to damn everything about this "pointless" article?  Compare it to ten or twenty articles you get by hitting "random article" and it stands up pretty well, I think. It is set out logically, following the progression of the show with following sections on the spin-off shows which relate to the X Factor every week. I see no spelling or grammatical errors.  If there are any, they are easily corrected.
 * 4)Is a non-argument. He made that statement when the article had been in main space for two days. I had made a total of 15 edits to it on the first day, and then when I was asked at DYK to supply in-line citations I spent the next day sourcing and adding these, which accounts for the rest of the edits. Hardly 'fanatic', just thorough.  Not surprisingly, it hasn't been edited since as deletion hangs over it - as User:smb said on the Leona Lewis talk page, "I don't want to help improve it only to see it removed."
 * I also made this article specifically about Leona Lewis on The X Factor, to show her progress through the show. To put things like the judges' comments in to The X Factor Series 3 page would unbalance that, as there would be nothing comparable for the other contestants. The table at the end shows all the songs she performed on the show. That information is on The X Factor Series 3 page, sure, but not in a handy form so that you can quickly and easily find out what she performed week by week.  Again, that wouldn't sit well in The X Factor Series 3 page as there is nothing comparable for the other contestants.
 * By the way, Wiki edit Jonny did not have the courtesy to visit my user page and tell me that he had propsed the article for deletion. Courtesy seems a little lacking in the dear boy - you only have to look at some of his edit summaries  when he comments on other users' edits.  Take this one:   In my opinion, a perfectly acceptable edit has been deemed "poorly written and unncessary" (sic - oh the irony).  What on earth is poorly written about it? And why can't we have interim information? Why do we have to wait for the full list?  Because Wiki edit Jonny says so ....
 * Okay, that's it for now. Leonapedia (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Opinion – I think there needs to be bit of straightening-out of one or two misunderstandings here. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, yes. However I think I was misunderstood when I said it is meant to offer sparing and necessary information. I do not mean that I am a communist leader and want censor what the demographic should and should not know. I mean that, there is a line between what is necessary for a reader to know—to have a full and rounded understanding—and what is extraneous. For example, you wouldn't make an article about Brad Pitt's daily undergoings, starting with getting up, drinking some milk, taking a shower and so on... because it is superfluous and unnecessary. If every user went into huge amounts of detail, adding to articles whatever/however much they wanted, you'd end up with a big, badly edited blob. We need to take into consderation that an article on Wikipedia is as much a publication as a book in the shops. That book, isn't the size of a house nor is it written liberally. Rather, it is a polished and well-edited piece of publishing. I only feel that to have word-for-word verbiage of what the judges said week-in week-out goes into a bit too much detail and doesn't add value to the article and, in a way, undermines the programme when a reader can just get that information from watching it on YouTube. And, Leonapedia, if you cared to look at the article for which I made that edit you would know that it already says when the auditions began, and, The X Factor website releases an article at the end of the audition process stating all the cities to which it has been for auditions. There's no point only stating one of the locations; it's all or nothing; preferably all. Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - useless article. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as well sourced and notable information (it is, after all, how she got her start) of a length that would make a merge undesirable. Ford MF (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and possibly merge anything useful elsewhere like The X Factor. I appreciate all the work that has gone into this, but if you start making individual articles like this for one contestant, then what's to stop every other contestant getting a similar article depicting every second of their time on the show? The important parts are probably covered in other articles anyway, so this page just isnt needed. Gung adin  15:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But my point is that she is exceptional. I'm not expecting there to be pages like this for every contestant because, quite frankly 99% of them fade into obscurity. This is clearly not going to happen to Leona Lewis - no 1 albums worldwide, record breaking sales, upcoming performance at the Olympics, possibly singing the theme to the next Bond film - she is a major star and so warrants a detailed examination of her rise to fame on this show. Leonapedia (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * She's only been publicly known for over a year, she's not in Whitney Houston's league just yet. To say she deserves this page because she's exceptional is opinion-based, and others might feel the same about all the other singers on the show. There are numerous singers who began on televised talent shows of some sort. Celine Dione and Gary Barlow for instance, both have been around a lot longer than Lewis and both can surely be deemed exceptional, but neither have articles on wikipedia detailing every aspect of their appaearance on the talent show. The series already has its own page The X Factor (UK series 3), and I might think differently if this was a collective expansion of the events of the entire series and not just focused on Leona. As it is, it comes across like a fan page with gushing comments everywhere about Leona. There's no reason why a selection of the judges comments can't be included in the main series' articles, but for all the contestants. Gung adin  10:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge some of the content. Subject matter isn't sufficiently notable for an individual article. PhilKnight (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Merge/Delete', if merged then remove the week-by-week details .--   Doctor muthu's muthu    wanna talk ? 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice – Thanks to all who have offered their opinions. In light of Wikietiquette, please can we state an absolute answer when putting in our input. As per the AfD guide: "Try to avoid contradictory or confusing recommendations, such as "delete and merge", which can't be done as edit histories of merged text must be preserved" (see here). Thanks. Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The GFDL document merely requires the authorship is recorded, which can be done in an edit summary, especially considering there is only one author. PhilKnight (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2008 (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.