Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thia Megia (3rd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thia Megia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

An obvious case of WP:BLP1E, failing to meet GNG or even the standard required for WP:BAND. Sufficient biographical info is already included in the parent article American Idol (season 10) RexxS (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article now has three sources and meets the first criterion of WP:MUSICBIO which states "A musician ... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". Note the use of may be notable because a bio has also to pass the common-sense test of WP:BLP1E. The sources clearly demonstrate that the public attention that Megia has attracted is solely related to her reaching the finals of American Idol. I do not believe that criterion number 9 is met as that identifies "won or placed in a major music competition". Since the finals are only now starting, this bio is premature, because I maintain that being one of 13 finalists is not being "placed in a major music competition". That should be reserved for 2nd and 3rd places (as commonly understood), and we have to draw a line somewhere in our biographies to avoid confusing Warhol's prediction of "15 minutes of fame" with actual encyclopedic notability. --RexxS (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be helpful, if Megia is to pass the WP:BLP1E restriction by having notability for more than one event, then the article needs to have properly sourced text to illustrate that – which it doesn't at present. I note that the consensus at the previous deletion was effectively because she did not progress past the first live round of AGT, it was insufficient to establish notability. Perhaps the closer of this discussion may accept it as sufficient once the AGT appearance is solidly sourced; but reading the article, I'm still not seeing a convincing claim of notability as it currently stands. --RexxS (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Megia has already satisfy the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO #1 and #9, also for #10 (for performance in a TV show). She certainly is not a case of WP:BLP1E.  She was the subject of coverage and interviews not just in US but also in the Philippines (an example here  ).  She achieved notability by just being a finalist in American Idol, and should she proceed on to the Top 10 which is very likely, she will then participate in a national tour and she would satisfy WP:MUSICBIO criterion #4, especially given that some past American Idol tours were more successful and had grossed more than some of the biggest names in music.  Her song is now in an Idol compilation album which is currently high in iTunes digital album chart, and since a compilation album will be released each week this year, she will also likely satisfy again criterion WP:MUSICBIO #10 for compilation album.  She will certainly be appearing and performing in other TV shows if and when she gets eliminated as this has been a tradition for past finalists. And she will be releasing music after the show, perhaps even during the season if she gets elimianted - a contestant who didn't reach semifinal this year Chris Medina has charted in Billboard Hot 100.  Proposing this article for deletion is not only premature and without foundation, but also adding to unnecessary bureaucratic process and I'd suggest nomination for its deletion be withdrawn per WP:SNOW. Hzh (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSICBIO#9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition" - Megia has not won or been placed in a major music competition. Fails#9.
 * WP:MUSICBIO#10: "performance in a television show ... But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E ... for further clarifications." So the policy is to discuss the finalists in the AI article, and this article should not exist other than as a redirect to that parent article.
 * This is most certainly one of the clearest cases of BLP1E imaginable. The closer only needs to read the article and observe the complete lack of reliable sources relating to Megia's notability outside the context of one event: American Idol. There are currently three usable sources: "Thia Megia makes it to AI’s top 13", "'American Idol': Top 13 finalist Thia Megia is living the dream", and "Fil-Am Thia Megia among frontrunners in ‘American Idol’". The NBC source is merely a link to a video clip from her appearance on AGT and that certainly does not represent the "significant coverage" that a source has to present to qualify under WP:GNG, and a previous version of this article was deleted because consensus was that the AGT appearance was not notable. The clip is sufficient to establish that Megia made an appearance on AGT, per WP:V, but does nothing to contradict the fact that her claim to notability rests entirely on her appearance on AI, which will fail BLP1E unless she wins or places in the competition. The possibilities that she might go on a tour, or that she might satisfy the criterion for compilation albums, or that she might have a Billboard 100 hit, are simply insufficient to justify an article right now, let alone when it was created last month. The only thing that is premature here is the article itself. Should Megia become notable at some point in the future, this article can be revived and expanded with all of the sources that will have become available. We have process here, bureaucratic or not, to ensure that the project remains an encyclopedia, and not a celeb gossip magazine. My suggestion is that those arguing to keep this obvious BLP1E should divert their energies into incorporating relevant information on the Finalists into the American Idol (season 10) article where it properly belongs. Not one of the keep arguments stand up to inspection, and it is the strength of the arguments that determine the closure, not the number of fans that turn up to !vote. --RexxS (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just make a few points here and I'm done -
 * 1) All finalists on American Idol are considered placed, that means she is de facto placed even if the exact position would not be known for some weeks, so she qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO#9. Arguing otherwise would be WP:LAWYER.
 * 2) She has performed in two prominent TV shows, and has received coverage for both shows. I have given you a link for the coverage she received after AGT which you completely ignored.  Argument cannot proceed properly if you ignore evidence to the contrary. She qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO#10 and certainly not a case of WP:BLP1E.
 * 3) In particular, she has received extensive coverage in the US and the Philippines for her appearance in American Idol, just an example out of the numerous press reports here -, she therefore qualifies under WP:GNG.
 * 4) It is unnecessarily bureaucratic because she has already achieved notability under multiple criteria, and she will likely achieve more in a couple of weeks' time. There is no justifiable ground for this nomination of deletion.Hzh (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done apart from the later comment below?
 * 1) On the contrary, your argument is WP:LAWYER because you're defying the spirit of the guideline. Try applying WP:COMMONSENSE and you'll see that "win or place" does not mean "was in the final thirteen". It means top three just about anywhere else, and there is no good reason for making an exception for your favourite show. The fact is that it is WP:CRYSTAL-ball gazing to create articles based on future outcomes.
 * 2) You gave a link to a YouTube video! You need to understand that it's the reliable sources that are in the article that establish issues such as notability, and anybody can see at even a cursory glance that the article's sources still don't show anything more than the BLP1E of American Idol.
 * 3) The reliable coverage she has received is all AI coverage. Look at the article. Lots of people in the news have enough coverage for one event to meet GNG, but they don't have their own articles. They are covered by in event article, and WP:BLP1E explains that we do it that way.
 * 4) Reading the article clearly demonstrates a subject whose coverage is entirely related to one event, no matter how many times that is denied on this page. Repeatedly attempting to smear a proper nomination for deletion based on well-established wikipedia policies is disruptive editing, and I'll request that you refactor your ill-founded attacks. There is no justification for having an article now, for someone who may be notable "in a few weeks time". It needs to be deleted. --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is no more point in arguing when you have no idea what "placed" even means in American Idol. Third place has no more significance in American Idol than 4th or 5th. Within the context of the show they get a home-town visit, that's about it.  Far more important to the contestants is getting into the Top 10, that means they get to go on a national tour which will earn them a 6-figure paycheck. I don't think you even read the article properly to realise that the link with interview after AGT I posted in already is in the article. Next time do more than a cursory glance. Hzh (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do us all a favour and admit out that your entire case rests on this YouTube Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-6WYtqsmwM. You have got to be kidding us. There is no way that it is acceptable as a reliable source; we're writing a serious encyclopedia here, not a gossip site for teenies. And quit the bad faith. I've looked hard at the seven (was four when I posted) "sources" in the article. Have you? There are now four independent sources that would make a claim to being reliable in this context - and they all are coverage of Megia's appearance on American Idol. Two of the other three are merely videos of Megia performing that do nothing to establish "significant coverage in reliable sources". I could post a video of my cat on YouTube and claim it was significant coverage by your standards. The final reference is a blog called "Teen Star" where Megia has posted her own promo material. This is the sort of desperate, rubbish sourcing that shows there is no substance to the suggestion that Megia's notability rests on anything other than American Idol. She fails BLP1E. --RexxS (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Aspects (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Passes WP:MUSICBIO #1 and #9. Aspects (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is obviously not a case of WP:BLP1E. Thia has performed in two major TV shows, American Idol and American's Got Talent, therefore qualifies under WP:BAND, so there is no ground for deletion. Hzh (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC) - Thanks Mrs. Megia
 * Where do you draw the line? Every person who has appeared on America's Got Talent?  Including the audition episodes?  Everybody who's appeared on AI, including the audition episodes?  The top 24?  The top 13?  Everybody who's appeared on Big Brother?  On Survivor?   Corvus cornix  talk  02:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since we are talking about a finalist of American Idol, the line is pretty clear, and your point is moot. American Idol is the biggest show in US TV history, it being the #1 show for an unprecedented 6 consecutive seasons, and is on course for the seventh #1.  Shows like Big Brothers or Survivor are not remotely comparable.  An exceptional number of finalists from American Idol have found success, not just in music (some of them are multiple-platinum selling artists), but also in theater, TV and film.  Being a finalists in the show is notable achievement.  The show has an extraordinary impact on the entertainment industry, and it is right that something so big in the popular culture should be properly documented in wiki.Hzh (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The clear line is the standard of "win or placed" that is documented at WP:BAND#9 which none of the finalists can pass at this moment of time. You are attempting to make your own rule by claiming that since AI has a larger audience than other game shows, it should be allowed to be an exception. So Corvus' point is well-made: if we make one exception for AI, where do we draw the line? Your comparison with Survivor, for example, is patently wrong: Survivor: The Australian Outback had Nielsen figures of 30 million, while the current AI is drawing an audience of around 24 million. That's even less than the UK TV audience for Miss World during the 1960s and 1970s, so by your logic, we could justify articles for all of those 15–20 finalists for each of the 20 years. Somehow I don't think so. The keep argument suffers fatally from americo-centric recentism. This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball, and we don't have articles on people simply because an editor expects them to be famous at some point in the future. If any of these AI finalists goes on to find fame, then we will have the sources needed to write their article beyond the context of a single event (per BLP1E). At present we don't have those sources and the closer will only have to look at the article to see that is the case. --RexxS (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All American Idol finalists are placed, that you are ignorant of this fact is not a basis for argument. And please don't use selective data in your argument, there are any number of American Idol episodes that have higher numbers than Survivor.  And once a year event is never considered in the ranking of regularly scheduled shows. (Do you know how big the audience for Super Bowl are?) It is odd to use the word recentism when I just showed that American Idol is the biggest show in ALL of US TV history. Giving a good account of such a significant cultural phenomenon is important for giving future generations an understanding of its place in its contemporary popular culture. 13:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be accurate, AI is not the biggest show in US TV history. But it's close, and I think this person does pass the notability bar, though barely at this moment. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is easy to choose different criterion and say why another show may be bigger, but I would just like to point you to this article from 4 years ago -, even then it was already regarded by rival TV execs as a show unprecedented in the history of television. 4 years later, it is still beating every other shows in sight. There isn't another show like it. Hzh (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if you don't understand WP:NPA, as your comment of 13:35, 13 March 2011 demonstrates, you might at least make an effort to look at the policies that have been brought to this discussion. If you want to bring a claim that "Shows like Big Brothers or Survivor are not remotely comparable" to American Idol, you'd better put some facts on the table – as I did when I showed that the viewing figures for AI are very comparable to those for e.g. Survivor. They are both in the 20–30 million range with Survivor's average being greater than AI's current figures. No amount of bluster will change the fact that your claim was shown to be wrong, nor will trying to divert attention by introducing straw-men like Superbowl (which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim or my refutation of it). The fact is that AI is just another TV game show, and will be less memorable than "Beat the Clock" (which had a bigger audience) in a few years' time. There's nothing special about AI, and you've made no case that justifies creating a dozen or more BLPs for individuals whose claim to fame is no more than being a competitor on the show. --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you completely misunderstood why it is considered the biggest show in US TV history (and the reason has already been clearly stated). It is the biggest because it has been the #1 for 6 consecutive seasons.  This is unprecedented, and the show is on course for the 7th consecutive #1. Survivor was only #1 for 1 season, it's not remotely comparable. Plenty of other shows have achieved one #1 (and even more had higher viewing figure for individual episodes), but no show in the history of US TV has been #1 for so long.  Not only that, the most important ratings are for the 18-49 age range, American Idol has already been #1 for 7 consecutive seasons, and will be #1 for the 8th season.  Read the article I posted why the show is so feared by other networks, I can post a dozen more articles like that.  Using Big Brother or Survivor as examples just showed you aren't aware how unexceptional those shows are in the US.  For example, All in the Family and The Cosby Show had viewing figures that far exceed American Idol (or Survivor) and were #1 for 5 seasons, but American Idol is thought a far more significant show because All in the Family was only a weekly half-hour show, whereas American Idol can be up to 5 hours a week.  The show simply bulldozes all competition away for up to 3 days a week.  To other networks, American Idol is like having a Super Bowl on Fox every week. Hzh (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I pity you. You are being taken in by the hype of television executives desperate to revive their flagging ratings. If you knew anything about the television industry (particularly from an international and long-term perspective), then you'd realise that AI's figures have been dropping for a couple of seasons now, but so have most shows. Being #1 now is much less of a big deal than it was years ago. Have you any idea how the viewing figures compare with popular game shows in the UK, or Canada, or Japan, now or in the past? In truth AI has lasted well and has been a successful show, but it's nothing special. The length of the show really isn't as significant as you think. A 5-day cricket test series can generate can generate over 35 hours of coverage a week, but it doesn't make it more significant than say, the Davies Cup in tennis which is much shorter. In summary, there's nothing about AI that should cause us to abandon the common English meaning of "win or placed" = first three. I'd love to be able to go down to the bookies, place an each way bet on the Grand National, and then go collect my winnings when my horse came in thirteenth (on the grounds that it's the #1 horse race).--RexxS (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion is getting absurd, now you are dragging in TV ratings in UK, Canada, and Japan. We are talking about a US TV show, and its significance in US TV history.  You clearly have no idea of the place of American Idol in US TV history, and you are arguing from the position of ignorance. You have no idea what prime time TV means in the US (cricket and Davis Cup?) and why American Idol is so dominant (on many episodes this season American Idol has more viewers than all the other main networks combined), you have no idea what "placed" means in American Idol (you don't know so you just make an untrue assumption), it is not good for someone so ignorant of other subjects to declare what is important and what isn't in those subjects they are ignorant of. It is simply bad for wiki. I don't go to astrophysics pages and declare what is important and what isn't and start nominating pages for deletion without having some basic understanding of the subject itself. It seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and isn't actually trying to have a constructive discussion, and really no good can come of this, so I won't be contributing further to this discussion. Hzh (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The absurdity is that you are claiming a special exemption from the commonsense definition of "win or placed", based on your limited perspective that American Idol is somehow special enough to make its own definition of "placed". Humpty-Dumpty would have been proud. This is the English-language Wikipedia and only about a quarter of its page views are from the USA. To most of the English-speaking world, AI is nothing out of the ordinary. Your repeated insistence that I have somehow become "ignorant" because I don't share your Americo-centric recentism, is tiresome. You need to understand that your small corner of Wikipedia is also subject to the same policies as the rest of the encyclopedia (BLP1E and BAND, for example), and not to definitions that you stretch to avoid policies that are inconvenient. It is not necessary for me to be an expert on US TV to be able to understand how policy applies to Wikipedia, as I can read sources and I can tell the difference between a reliable source and a piece of fluff being passed off as encyclopedic. I'm sorry but your requirement for subject expertise before being allowed to comment at AfD is abhorrent to the wiki-philosophy and you should be ashamed of holding such views. To determine who is doing the arguing here, I'll direct your attention to the contributor's history for this page,showing you've made 41 edits here and this will be my 7th. --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly reminder, folks: WP:CIVIL. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to American Idol (season 10) until such a time as she passes WP:BAND.  Corvus cornix  talk  18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Unless she wins American Idol, this entry deserves to be deleted or else everyone and their dog will end up with a wikipedia page.


 * Keep': Per Aspects. Candy  o32  00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, passes (barely) at least two criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. I'm not a big fan of Idol, but a whole lot of other people are. (For the record, I was the nominator for the second AfD on this article, but that was pre-Idol). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: It appears that every contestant still in the finals as of last week (see this page) has his or her own article. Take from that what you will. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, Meets WP:MUSICBIO parts 1, 9, and 10. - 22:27, 16 March 2011  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.158.144 (talk)
 * 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.