Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peta Murgatroyd


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Peta Murgatroyd

 * – ( View AfD View log )

as per WP:ONEVENT. only known for her appearance on Dancing with the Stars. and she was eliminated in week 1. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - being in the background chorus line of a dance tv show is barely more notable than being an extra in a movie --which is entirely not notable (not even for IMDB!)  one appearance on the same show as a dance contestant and being voted off  immediately is not notable.   being the lead dancer in a show that reached broadway is perhaps somewhat notable maybe.  barely.  does a lead dancer get to speak any lines?  the article sentence which begins "Peta is currently dating..." is actually funny: as if grasping for notability by mentioning her slightly barely notable current boyfriend.  Cramyourspam (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contrary to the above, the subject was promoted from the dance troupe on Dancing with the Stars to become one of the professional dance partners for the last two seasons. While she and her partner were eliminated in the first week, she has nevertheless returned to compete as one of the professional dance partners again this season. With only two exceptions, it appears that every other professional dance partner on the U.S. edition of DWTS has an article on Wikipedia (or at least their names are blue links). I believe her involvement as a professional dance partner on DWTS for two seasons is sufficient to qualify the subject as notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Frankly, the nominator not having the right facts at all puts in question whether they would even nominate if they had the right facts. LibStar, could you please be courteous and add a link to this discussion on the article talk page along with teh AFD notice, so people actually come here to vote?  Thanks in advance.  This person has been a multiple time star on a massive top 10 TV program, and a lead dancer in a Broadway show.  The multiple DWTS appearances alone generate massive secondary press on this person, if one cares to look. 76.95.213.142 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP*** Current Rising Fame — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.55.7.26 (talk • contribs) — 50.55.7.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Seriously, what would be the point of removing this article? Are we trying to save electrons?  Are we afraid the Wikipedia is going to run out of pages?  The Wikipedia currently has nearly 4 million articles and I guarantee you that many of them are less relevant than this one.  Who cares?  If you don't like the article, then don't read the article.  Truthfully, the fact that she placed 3rd in the world at the world famous Latin Championships in at Blackpool, England (2006) would probably be enough for her to have a Wikipedia article, even if she wasn't on a TV show watched by nearly 18 million people, but wait, she is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceMount (talk • contribs) 01:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)  — BruceMount (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - currently in her 2nd season of DWTS as a pro and as stated above, promoted as part of their troupe dancing group swinquest (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - There's something like 270K google hits for this distinctive name, which is a big enough iceberg to net a reliable sources snowcone. Most of the hits are empty calorie pop culture blogs, of course. Here's one that looks worthy for our purposes at AfD, LA FASHION WEEK. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping. Chicken banana also reveals numerous hits. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I gave ya a source and you snip and chip at at my thinking... Do you care to comment on the source I cite or do you just want to run random Google searches about nonsense phrases??? The principle is simple: the bigger the mass of possible sources, the higher the likelihood of sources that pass muster. Even if it's 1 out of 10,000 hits being "good," that's still 27 winners in this case. It's a pretty simple principle, called sampling. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - voting again to keep. Tristan MacManus, also from the 'troupe' has his own article, and he also doesn't have much of a career listed (DWTS) making up over half the article swinquest (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination cites WP:ONEVENT with claims that the single season 13 DWTS professional appearance is insufficient for notability.  Whether a single appearance as a DWTS professional conveys notability need not be addressed, however, because the nominator's claim is false.  Her season 14 DWTS appearances, role in Burn the Floor (which need not be a redlink) on Broadway, and performance at the 2006 Latin Championships are certainly adequate.  Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:28, 4 April 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.