Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitch MacDonald


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 03:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mitch MacDonald

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sources stem entirely from the time singer was on Canadian Idol. Singer has done literally nothing of note afterward, making this a WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I was tempted with a weak keep as it could be argued they were briefly notable and to delete it recentism. But reading WP:BLP1E it's a clear delete.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Article creator here. I'm somewhat confused by this nomination. WP:BLP1E applies to "low-profile" individuals which is not how we would usually view a singer who appeared on a nationally broadcast TV series for well over three months, and then continues to give media interviews two years later. Perhaps the nominator meant WP:BIO1E? With that I have some difficulty too, as it is a stretch to call it "one event" when it was twice-a-week TV appearances on what was at times Canada's most popular show, for three months, and was followed by a national tour for him and the others of the top three. But to me, the real test is to look to the sources: Do they cover him only in passing, in articles about the TV show? No, not at all. There are many newspaper articles that are primarily about him: taken together, there is decent coverage in the Vancouver Province, the National Post, CBC News, the Fort Frances Times, and the Cape Breton Post, among others. In addition to WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1, I think it's not a stretch to argue that he also meets criteria #9 and #12. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Community consensus My belief is that runners-up on Idol and similar shows are not notable unless they have also accrued notability prior to or subsequent to the season they appeared in, just as not every actor to appear on a TV show is notable no matter how notable the show is. Notability is not inherited.  No evidence here of notability independent to Idol.  At the very least this should be merged to whatever our reality-show equivalent is of a "List of characters" article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to point me to that consensus? The consensus that I was aware of at the time I created the article was at WP:IDOL: "For contestants, it has been decided that only finalists should qualify for their own article based on their participation in the show. Semi-finalists who are not otherwise notable are redirected to their season's article." Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to being unaware of any runner-ups who have been kept who did not obtain subsequent notability. All the kept runner-ups I'm aware of went on to release albums, appear in film/TV, do concerts, make appearances et cetera, so as to maintain significant coverage well beyond the end of their season.  I'd be assisted, and possibly educated, by being pointed to runner-ups with no non-Idol notability who have survived an AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they were quite common, at least for a while, and the community consensus seemed fairly strong. Articles for deletion/Jasmine Murray, Articles for deletion/Stephanie Edwards (singer), Articles for deletion/Michael Sarver are some examples—these are finalists who did not even make the top 2, which MacDonald did. The AfDs seemed to hinge on them being finalists (and thus received sufficient coverage), and they were all kept at AfD. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I frankly cannot understand how those articles got kept, based on policy, but I have to concede that they did. I'll change my rationale above accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Michael Sarver seems like he can stay, since he has a charting album on a notable label. The others indeed seem like improper keeps. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * I feel compelled to note that the nominator has gone ahead and re-nominated two of the three articles whose AfDs I mentioned above. That's his prerogative of course, but the problem is that the same distortion of BLP policy is invoked there that has been used here; I think these comments are accurate. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He's received non-trivial coverage from multiple independent sources. Yes, the coverage is related to his appearance on the show.  But, coverage is about him specifically, and coverage is by sources, such as the CBC, who are not directly connected to the show (not just promotional fluff by ctv).  So, this article can be kept strictly on the general notability guideline.   Therefore, it's not necessary to worry about the general consensus for finalists of the show. --Rob (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep runners-up on the terrible Idol franchise of shows are notable. MLA (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2011 (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.