Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucie Jones


 * 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   redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). History retained due to availability of sources there. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lucie Jones

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was moved too swiftly into main space by WP:AFC reviewer. Article does not yet pass WP:Notability. Individual is not yet signed under a label, and at this time is only notable as a reality show contestant. Lacking reliable sources verifing importance and lasting notablity to justify own article at this time. Calmer  Waters  01:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - This artist does not yet meet notability requirements. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] undefined — Fails WP:BIO, totally unverified claims. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Needs substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6) where a biography already exists. No independent notability. I42 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the series. It's reasonable that people will search for her, but the series article is the appropriate place for now.--Michig (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note a look at the history shows continued dispute with recreating the redirect vs. creation of this article Calmer   Waters  08:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and recreate as protected redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6) until such a point as Lucie shows independent notability. Nancy  talk  08:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and recreate as protected redirect per Nancy rational. Just looked under policy for protection and this would fall under content disputes and would allow discussion at talk page at time when article may meet inclusion on its own merits.  Calmer   Waters  08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6), and protect the redirect. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  14:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and then recreate a redirect and fully protect it, along with ALL of the X Factor contestant redirects. This is getting stupid now. Also, Hassan19 has been warned about creating these articles, and he is the one nominating them at AFD. I think a block may be in order. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable at all. The redirect is enough werldwayd (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the series. RaseaC (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a well written article that is worthy for Wikipedia. Whitebrightlight (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The question is not whether the article is well written or "worthy". The question is whether or not the subject, Lucie Jones, is notable under our criteria. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Am I looking at the wrong article? I see plenty of independent coverage.  Worst case, merge and redirect.  Too much work to just throw away because people don't like reality show contestants. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - If deletionists want to know why the suck, here is a post to read (comments). Good luck!!!--Kozuch (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do you have a reason for your !vote? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Suggesting to delete the page just shows pure laziness on all of your part. At worse, displace the content over to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6), then redirect. On a similar note, I don't see how John & Edward currently qualify as better notability-wise. Remember that WP:N is a guideline, not a law, otherwise 90% of all articles on Wikipedia should be scraped by that ideology. —  Io Katai  ᵀᵃˡᵏ  22:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do you have a reason for your !vote? Whether or not we're lazy is moot. The relative quality of other articles is moot. Is this subject notable? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the page history, and the page histories of other pages for X Factor series 6 contestant bios, you will see that there is no laziness involved in bringing this to AfD. As you rightly note, there is an existing biography page for all the X Factor finalists with redirect pages to it for all the individual artists. A single editor (as an IP and Hassaan19) has taken it upon themself - without attempting to reach any kind of consensus on the talk page - to split off individual bios rather than develop the group page. When challenged, this user demands the article be taken to AfD (despite that not being the correct venue) - so here we are. Again. Accusing the nominator of laziness looks to me like a violation of WP:NPA. I42 (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These AfDs are just getting ridiculous. If you take away the people that are just voting 'delete' without backing up their argument with any sort of policy or proper opinion this vote should be snowballed.  raseaC talk to me 14:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Accusing the nominator? I'm accusing everyone here who voted for deletion that it's taking the lazy way out, and that rather you should be moving or merging (in part) the content and follow up with a redirect. It's essentially the same comment I gave AnemoneProjectors a month and a half ago at the time there was edit warring between him and ip over at Joe McElderry's page, which he respected.
 * The only part of WP:N that this article appears to fail is WP:NTEMP (i.e. known for one event), but so far I would say the Music career section on her page already challenges that notion just as much as John & Edward. Otherwise, I could also criticize WP:FAILN for not having been properly followed, asides from notifying one author. —  Io Katai  ᵀᵃˡᵏ  16:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Im am sorry if you feel I did this as being lazy. Actually, I did this to resolve any issues with the idea of making this a redirect, as stated in the edit summary when placing this as a Afd nomination. Merging the information and making a redirect would not have prevented possible further issues with it being changed right back to an article, hense the need for discussion. I have seen instances where a nomination has been placed for deletion and points have been raised validating that the article should be kept. Instances where further sourcing and notability have been established. I would hope everyone here would be open to the points raised by all editors when coming to a final conclusion on how to address this article. Calmer   Waters  16:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for me. Lucie's hardly had the same amount of press coverage as the likes of Jedward or some of the other contestants. If you compare Lucie's elimination controversy with Laura White's last year, or Maria Lawson's in Series 2, it's practically nothing. And the fact that her elimination caused controversy is probably one of the only reasons she's slightly more notable than some of the other contestants. She hasn't done anything outside of the show yet, so I think it should be deleted. --MissusCitrus (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I am the creator of the article, and it took me three hours to create a well written article. People think Lucie is not notable outside the show, only notable for the elimination controversy, however that would be wrong. The Music career section explains very much about what is happening now, and I would add info and a reference if there is something in the press that tells us what she is up to. People are expecting Lucie to have a record deal in order to keep this article, but since she is contracted to The X Factor until March, she cannot sign anything for now. At the moment she is doing gigs and performing at local places. I am going to agree...with Whitebrightlight, lo Katai, Kozuch and Peregrine Fisher, who opt to save the article from being deleted, because she does seem notable outside of the series, so I would suggest discussing this after the series is finished. Hassaan19 (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most, if not all, of the music career section is fancruft and not notable. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - She is notable, was over the newspapers for five weeks, and, if John and Edward can get an article for the EXACT SAME thing, then this should be kept. Pic Editor960 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * She was all over the newspapers as part of the ongoing X factor coverage / publicity. That does not provide independent notability. I42 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Demanding Lucie Jones to be notable independently of the X Factor would be like demanding Obama be notable independent of his political career. The X Factor is what she is notable for. No one is notable independent of the thing they are notable for, and asking for such a thing is nonsense. Lucie Jones is known by over 10 million Britons, performs at gigs and has a single that has reached number 1 in the UK music charts. She is clearly notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Certainly she is known by more people than a great many obscure figures who have pages dedicated to them on here. I would suggest that those who argue otherwise are motivated by snobbery regarding reality TV shows such as the X Factor. 79.70.157.200 (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would suggest you read WP:N.  raseaC talk to me 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The distinction between independent and non-independent notability is important. If someone has no independent notability we do not erase them from Wikipedia, we cover them in the article on that one thing they are notable for . This individual is covered in the article on the X Factor, in the group bio page, and the Lucie Jones page was a redirect to that existing bio. No-one here is suggesting that those be deleted - only the separate, independent, page. I42 (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment She quite clearly meets the "significant coverage" criteria (se above point about 10 million people knowing who she is), and the independence criteria is being misused by many on this page. The guidelines define non-independence as "works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc". Lucie Jones is not notable from self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiography, or press releases. She is notable for her television appearances and for her coverage in the mainstream press. The independence criteria does not require her to be notable for something other than the X Factor. 79.70.157.200 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I could see why you thought the policy was being misused if that was the relevant one, but it's not. The relevant policy is WP:BIO1E ("Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them".) and guideline WP:BIO1E ("When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate".) See the links for the full context. We are talking about independent notability, not coverage independent of the subject, which is what you are quoting. I42 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

DELETE Lucie Jones is a non notable contestant who achieved no wider fame or significance outside of X Factor where she was eliminated midway. If the contestants still in the competition aren't worthy of separate entries, Jones who has no notable achievements outside of the competition should not be entered separately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimmois (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep I think it is a good article. Will the world really be a worse place if she has an article or not. Reli source
 * CommentIt could be a fantastic article but if it contravenes our policies (which would make WP a worse place) then it doesn't warrent inclusion.  raseaC talk to me 23:09, 5 December 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.