Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolle Galyon


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Nicolle Galyon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject participated in a reality television show for aspiring singers. Cut in the first round (of 20 vocalists), did not place, and was barely shown. Notability not established in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cindy ( talk to me ) 14:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CREATIVE, unreferenced WP:BLP. Pburka (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Still delete: fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BLP1E. All references refer only to her brief appearance as a contestant on a reality show and were published within a few weeks of each other. Lacks persistent coverage. Consider redirecting to The Voice (U.S. season 2). Pburka (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete no Notability. Fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, and the rest of the above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Contrary to Sue, the subject passes WP:GNG. Whether she passes WP:BIO (which is basically GNG) or WP:MUSICBIO is irrelevant.  Notability guidelines do not have an order of precedence.  Any that are met are acceptable.  Sources:  and .  Not sure that Sue even bothered to search for sources, Pburka's comment "unreferenced WP:BLP" judges the article rather than the subject, and although I greatly respect Cindy, I am not positive WP:BEFORE was followed when I've found five sources.  I'll improve this article later.--v/r - TP 18:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Added the refs to the article.--v/r - TP 19:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, strong keep per WP:HOTTIE--v/r - TP 19:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * TParis, I understand that you have made more edits to the article than anyone else, and I understand your frustration here. But you must try to take a step back and look at the article in a neutral way. There simply isn't significant coverage of this person in reliable independent sources. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? I made edits to the article after leaving a !vote here.  And your statement is wrong in the first place,  has the highest edit count on that article.  Did you look at the article history?  It is generally considered appropriate at WP:AFD for those !voting to keep an article to improve it to address the issues of the delete !voters.  Now, I've shown 5 sources with significant independent coverage.  Please explain why they are not so.  Have you even looked at the article and the sources?  You've made a grave mistake in assuming I've come to a keep opinion by using means other than neutrality.  I have no more connection to the article than you do.  Feel free to change your argument to something with more factual accuracy and actual policy based reasoning.  You're somewhere between ad hominem and contradiction on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.--v/r - TP 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First let me start by saying that you did a very good job in sourcing. You were able to dig up sources that nobody else, including me, could find. this was very good detective work, and I commend you for this. I am going to go through them and give my reasoning as to why I do not think they qualify. Please don't take the comments personally. I think you did a good job.
 * Nashville.com article, if anything, was damning, with the comment "Unfortunately it was not Galyon’s night last night. It could have been nerves or it could have been she was missing her piano which was a last-minute change to the performance...", this does not reinforce her notability.
 * The "taste of country" article was equally unimpressive, reading "“When you weren’t nervous you were so special,”... Gaylon said at that point she felt like she had gotten what she came for so she lost focus."
 * Hutchnews.com is a local Hutchington kansas concern. a single article there certainly does not denote notability.
 * "Digital Spy" is just an internet ad-mill that taps RSS feeds. Not Notable.
 * BuddyTV - The only source that seems (again in my humble opinon) to count is the BuddyTv source, which speaks of her work at The Voice. But is this it? All sorts of people worked at The Voice, how is she, in particular, notable? And to be perfectly honest, I have never even heard of BuddyTV until now.


 * None of this qualifies for WP:GNG which demands " significant coverage in reliable, independent sources". She was cut in the very first round. Perhaps as time goes on, this person will make a name for herself, but she simply hasn't been able to do that yet.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG requires that subjects be covered in articles, not that the articles speak highly of them. A quotation that suggests she was not on her game does not make a source any less of a source.  Same for Taste of Country.  Hutchnews, we've never declined a source because it is local.  We only decline when all sources are local because they suggest local significance.  Digital Spy: There is no evidence to suggest that article was an RSS feed.  In fact, the "author" appears to have a page suggesting she wrote it instead of that it was pulled from an automatic RSS feed.
 * I think you are confused what "significant" means in the Wikipedia context. You seem to think it means "the article must be about a significant even" rather than "a significant portion of the article must be about the subject".  WP:42 quite clearly explains "a cited reference must be about the subject – there must be at least one lengthy paragraph, and preferably more, directly covering it."  These sources meet the "significant" requirement as explained in WP:42.--v/r - TP 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You make some valid points. But In my most humble opinion, these are simply all obscure references to a failed candidate. By this logic, every single candidate on that show could have their own article, as they certainly have all had similar coverage (If you want to call it that). I think that at the end of the day, when the smoke clears, the notability simply isn't there. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 05:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete  Not notable - references provided are not exactly encouraging.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete  Not notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a teen gazette.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I am impressed by TParis' defense of this bio, but let's break it down to basics: This person is essentially a songwriter with modest success at it, certainly nothing that would put her past WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. She wrote two songs that made it into a single EP. That's simply not enough. Her participation in that TV show is irrelevant, since it confers even less notability. § FreeRangeFrog 20:28, 2 December 2012 (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.