Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun Smith (singer)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Shaun Smith (singer)

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

WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Otterathome (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to the appropriate series. There's enough verifiable information here that losing it goes against our best interests. Not sure if it should be kept as its own article, but deleting it should not be an option. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no verifiable information here other than that which pertains to Britain's Got Talent so delete per nom. There is nothing left to merge - that which isn't covered elsewhere is opinion and rumour - and none of it is sourced. I42 (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with what the previous comment says, plus I'm unsure if being in the final is notable enough to warrant a page. Others like Shaheen Jafargholi may have the same standing with him in the competition, but Shaheen has attracted considerable attention away from the show, and overseas. As far as im aware, Shaun Smith has not. (Kyleofark (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Delete. Not yet notable for anything outside of the competition. If and when he gets signed, we can discuss the issue again. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete didn't place anywhere in the final. Not notable for anything else. Sceptre (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge into the series article. Not notable enough... --Saigon punkid (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to the appropriate series. Maybe because the show was on weekend, there aren't any news, however this week we can know if he's signed. Ferpunk (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable enough.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 10:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER as he was one of the stars of a show which got the biggest UK TV audience for 5 years and which starts a national live tour this month. I have added a couple of sources and there are many more available.  Note also that deletion would contravene our editing policy as there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see WP:ENTERTAINER being met. As you acknowledge, he was part of a show, not multiple shows - textbook WP:1E. I42 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been multiple events - the audition, the semi and the final. There will now be many more events as BGT goes on the road with the finalists as a stage show.  There is already national media interest in this person and detailed coverage which provides ample sources for a separate article.  There is absolutely no case for deletion as this would be contrary to our editing policy.  Please note that your textbook, WP:BLP1E, says nothing about deletion: "In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.".  And it is talking about low-profile people, which is no longer the case for this person.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Although the show involved multiple performances, it was still a single event - there is only one article about the series, after all. (In the same way that the two innings and five days of a cricket test match, and multiple different reports about a news event, each describe a single event.) I don't see how this person is no longer low profile - he is still only notable from his appearance on the single tv show and has no independent notability. I do not believe WP:PRESERVE is relevant - that says (paraphrasing) clean-up, don't remove but, specifically, "as long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article" - and the contention here is whether they do belong in a finished article or not. I do agree with you, per WP:BLP1E, that there should be a redirect to the main article, and the main article could even include more of a bio than it does - so long as the bio is not given undue weight. FWIW I also believe it is quite likely we will see more of Smith in the future but that means nothing now. I42 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you agree that the article should not be deleted then please amend your delete summary opinion above. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect is an editorial decision, not an administrative one. A redirect is required after a merge, but if there is nothing to merge, a redirect can simply be created. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (-> Colonel Warden) There was nothing in what I wrote that suggested I had altered my view and I would request you strike your comment suggesting I had. I42 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was - you indicate that we require a redirect and so wish to retain this article heading. Above you state that there no sources but this is now incorrect.  Please amend your !vote accordingly as deletion is not the way to retain such material. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only one show, so he hasn't starred in 'multiple' performances. Which criteria of WP:MUSICBIO does he pass? Because he doesn't seem to meet any of them.--Otterathome (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there have been multiple performances over a period of some weeks. The common title and setting does not make them the same.  They have been broacast and reported seperately and there are more to come as the finalists go on a tour of the country making further performances.  It is absurd to claim that this is one event.  Try buying one ticket and then claiming admission to all performances... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which number of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria is that?--Otterathome (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Numbers #1, #4 and #9. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 is all WP:1E coverage, #4/#9 BGT is not a concert tour and not a major music competition. So unless there's something I'm missing, you are mistaken.--Otterathome (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing in all respects. BGT is a major music competion which consists of multiple events.  It has already been touring parts of the UK such as Glasgow, Birmingham and London and continues with a series of tour dates in places such as Sheffield in which Shaun Smith is contracted to appear.  Finalists receive payment for these tour appearances and so Shaun Smith is already a significant professional. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, sorry it's not a major music competition. In music competitions, participants only play music. BGT accepts any act doing anything (dancing/juggling/comedy etc) And BGT isn't a concern tour either, even he did decide to tour with them, it would be WP:CRYSTAL which would probably end up as trivial coverage anyway.--Otterathome (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure it's a major music competition - one of the biggest. And his place in the ongoing tour is assured - it's all part of the contract.  Why would we delete this article to put it back it 10 days or after the other numerous events which follow? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether this is a music tour or not, it is the BGT Tour, not the Shaun Smith tour, so WP:1E would still apply. Quibbling about whether there have been multiple appearances or not is entirely missing the point of WP:1E - it is the event, not the participant, that has the notability. Until he steps out of its shadow there should not be a separate article no matter how many times you see him on the show or how often the show is written about. So, #s 1 and 4 are discounted. #9 is perhaps open to interpretation, but the X Factor series established the precedent that "placed" means top 3 - which is why I !voted keep for Julian Smith (3rd), but not here. I42 (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per WP:MUSICBIO #9 - Has won or placed in a major music competition. This is a talent contest which is a bit quibbly but deleting is not needed here. No prejudice for restoring once independent notability is secured. -- Banj e  b oi   23:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --haha169 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, he influenced the first ever appearance in a chart of a well-known song. At least ensure that is not lost by merging and redirecting this information. Thank you. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  18:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't you mean to say Merge instead of Keep then?--Otterathome (talk) 14:56, 7 June 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.