Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Pritchard (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:48, 14 October 2009

Greg Pritchard

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A waiter who briefly appeared on Britain's Got Talent and is now a waiter again. No independent notability, therefore fails inclusion criteria. I42 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Dincher (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The large number of sources provided indicate that he is quite notable. Please see WP:JNN. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He may be a waiter again but he's a notable waiter, attracting continuing coverage for his work and performances. Deletion is clearly inappropriate as there are good alternatives such as merger with articles about the shows in which he has performed. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You say "keep" and then argue for "merge". Can you clarify your intent? Per BIO1E I would agree that merge to the appropriate page (BGT) would ordinarily be appropriate - except that, in this case, there would be undue weight given to this one participant. I42 (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's only notable for one thing, and is not independently notable, despite the "large number of sources". Kevin (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he's notable then he's notable, period. Just like Susan Boyle, who made her name on the same show. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he was not notable, just that he is only notable for one thing, and therefore should not have an article, per WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what BLP1E means. We have lots of articles about people who are notable for just one thing, like Susan Boyle, Neil Armstrong, Rosa Parks, Lee Harvey Oswald and many lesser folk such as thousands of Olympic athletes &c. The essential distinction is that if a person does something notable then they are notable by virtue of this outstanding performance or deed. If they are merely bystanders or passive participants, such as passengers on a crashed aircraft or victims of crime then it is the event which is notable, not the people caught up in it. Our topic is a case of the first sort - a series of outstanding and notable performances. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously comparing Pritchard's historical significance with that of Lee Harvey Oswald etc?

Certainly. Oswald was just a guy with a gun whereas Pritchard has talent. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO1E addresses this. With Oswald there is coverage of the man - why he did what he did, etc. Oswald himself became notable. Pritchard, OTOH, is purely a player in the entertainment show that is Britain's Got Talent - he has not attained notability beyond that and all the refs discuss him in that context. WP policy directs that our coverage of him should be limited to inclusion in the article about the show. I42 (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. Notability is present~~, but I'm concerned about WP:LOCAL~~. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC), altered at 23:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of coverage of him in Vietnam. I'm not sure what they're saying but that's a picture of him so he's the primary topic. That's international coverage which is usually considered decisive in such cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does the trick, thanks. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, or merge to Britain's_Got_Talent_(series_3)#Semi-finalists. To quoteWP:BLP1E, and to respond to Colonel Warden's argument above, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. [...] 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." Why do we have articles, then, for Neil Armstrong, Oswald, etc? Because "if the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." The moon landing is going to be commemorated for decades and possibly centuries to come. The death of JFK is a massive cultural watershed with long ranging implications for 20th century politics. By contrast, a single season of Britain's Got Talent is highly unlikely to be talked about more than 24 months after it finishes, and its impact on our cultural, political, and scientific landscape is miniscule at best. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First time moon landings are fairly rare and we shouldn't judge such matters by the most extreme and exceptional cases. Please consider Category:Swimmers at the 2008 Summer Olympics which contains hundreds of articles. Most of these seem to be stubby entries like Fabien Gilot which have no independent sources to speak of. It is absurd to say that someone like Pritchard, with massive press coverage, is not notable, when we have thousands of articles about folk with less notability. My impression is that people are gunning for Pritchard because he's famous rather than the contrary - it's the build them up and then knock them down phenomenon. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most extreme and exceptional cases are exactly those that deserve encyclopedic coverage; those which are merely average or unexceptional don't merit articles. Your argument that many other non-notable people have articles is covered by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and is less an argument for the keeping of Pritchard than it is an argument for those other articles to be nominated for deletion. (See WP:POKEMON). Your assertion of motive for the delete is an argument upon the person (WP:ADHOM) and it's not valid; either the arguments for a delete are good or they aren't, and they can be rebutted or reinforced on their merits without needing to examine the motives of those making them. (If you're looking for personal motive, try that were it not for WP:BLP1E I'd have my own article. :-) ) But seriously, this guy is only notable within the context of the third season of Britain's Got Talent and he can be adequately discussed at that article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per colonel warden. BLP1E is one of the most misunderstood and misused policies in AFDs. Very well referenced article, meeting all notability guidelines. Ikip (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep- I'm not sure he deserves a stand-alone article at this time, but there's too much information, spread out over a period of time (thus negating BLP1E), to delete it. A merge discussion may be appropriate, but that's not a matter for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' not notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.149.17 (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's someone who gets the swineflu and a newsreporter and media outlet go to the trouble of writing a story on him. If it wasn't clear before that BLP1E didn't apply, it should be after seeing that story in print. Here's someone writing about him in Greek. I don't see how this AfD is anything but frivolous. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having swine flu is trivial, so doesn't make him any more notable than he was before, so BLP1E would still apply (if it actually already did). Personally I think there should be list articles about the Britain's Got Talent (semi-)finalists (as there is for Big Brother housemates and The X Factor finalists) and this article should be merged with the appropriate one. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry that's wrong. If the media takes notice of someone having swine flu by name that is a strong indicator of notability. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability's not temporary; do you seriously make the argument that (barring him doing something else exceptional) anybody is going to remember or care about this guy in five years? Ten years? Twenty? - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not expire. See Whistling Dick for a stub I wrote about another semi-pro musician who made his mark for one big thing. He is now mostly forgotten but there are people who still care. It's not our job to pick the winners - we have room for all this and more. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see if you're moving for a relaxing of the general notability guidelines to deem any subject with reliable sources as worthy of encyclopaedic coverage on the basis that Wikipedia has room, that's something I can get behind, but it's not, as I understand it, policy at this stage. The current policy requires something more than merely a plethora of sources; it requires that those sources testify to a level of ongoing notability worthy of encyclopaedic coverage. I'd personally argue that the Whistling Dick article, on the basis of the information within it, would be an appropriate target for a merge and redirect to the song for which the artist is famous. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a policy and, in any case, our topic, Greg Pritchard, satisfies it easily as it is the subject of numerous independent and reliable sources. If you would merge our stub on Whistling Dick, you fail to explain why you would not merge or retain our much more substantial article upon Greg Pritchard. Your suggestion that we should delete it is contrary to our editing policy. Your position seems to be an expression of your personal distaste for the topic but it is our policy to be impersonal about topics as Wikipedia is not censored. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned above that I consider a merge to Britain's_Got_Talent_(series_3)#Semi-finalists would be an acceptable outcome, although my personal feeling is that he doesn't increase an understanding of that topic either and would therefore be a better target for a delete and redirect. I just don't see any independent notability of the guy - he's known for having been on Britain's Got Talent and nothing else, no one's able to point to any cultural impact he's had - I mean, he's not a meme, or a byword, or a pop culture touchstone or anything - so he can be adequately covered on pages about the show. If he later breaks out into a successful career in music or something we can revisit the issue per WP:MUSICBIO, but that's not happened yet. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe idea that members of a famous group activity are unnotable seems specious at best. Suppose, it was a wikipedia rule that if group X is famous, then none of its members can be notable by themselves. Then, all articles about professional atheletes would need to be either merged or deleted. Atheletes "break out" because of their obvious talent. Individual articles are not restricted to free agents in sports, nor are or should they be in music. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you're misunderstanding or misrepresenting my argument, Firefly322. Obviously individuals who take part in group activities often deserve their own pages (in fact WP:MUSICBIO sets a comparitively low bar to jump in this regard). The bar in those circumstances (and again, this is born out by WP:ATHLETE) seems to be related to competitive success - that is, playing at the professional level of a sport or the highest amateur level, significant contribution to the field, creating a charting or award winning album, et cetera. Mr Pritchard here has not produced any creative works, has not won any awards, has not made any impact no his field, has made no contributions to his industry, has engaged in no charitable works, has not collaborated with any notable artists, is not notably prolific in his field, has made no significant income from his chosen field, and really, has only competed in one competition - Britain's Got Talent Season 3 - which he did not win, and was not, in fact, even a finalist in. He's gone back to being a waiter, so we're not exactly holding our breath for his next assault on the public consciousness, either. His notably is WHOLLY defined by his appearance on a single season of a single television show in a non-acting capacity, and as such he should be treated in the same manner as any other single-role bit part actor by being referenced on the page of that television show and not in his own article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just for the record, he has done charity events (e.g., for a hospice, http://i640.photobucket.com/albums/uu130/SanyahMoon/Miscellanous/img100.jpg) but they're mostly discussed on his fan site and YouTube videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pritchardfan (talk • contribs) 07:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - non-notable, and largely WP:BLP1E - Alison ^❤ 00:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep BLP1E doesn't mean we have to delete an article solely because it is about one event. (to use the standard example, look at John Hinkley). Moreover, if the logic of BLP1E is some form of minimizing harm argument then it seems silly to delete an article such as this which focuses essentially on the subject's accomplishments. The individual meets WP:BIO and I seem to recall a prior consensus at one point that semifinalists and above in major reality television shows were considered to be notable (which isn't necessary given that he meets BIO pretty well. The fact that I disagree with such a consensus is for another time). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per kevin. Tim1357 (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets 02:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage does not appear to be ongoing, and is solely in relation to appearance on the show. Appears to have had his 15 mintues. No problem with recreation if further coverage becomes available. Quantpole (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may have coverage at the moment, but who will remember him in a year's time? Someone mentioned Susan Boyle - yes, she was not a winner, but 2nd place - but she has an album coming out next month, and she has a U.S. tour: let's compare Greg: no album (or singles) in progress from what I can see, a UK tour with a minor tribute singer. Most of the competitors on BGT get a lot of coverage, but this is a temporary thing. If he gets the role in the 'mystery' West End musical and it's a major production, or if he records an album which charts, then he could be added - but as it stands, he's not notable enough yet. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "one event" in Wikipedia terms doesn't mean "one discrete event", it refers more to a continuous event with often clear starting and ending points. Without another notability guideline (like WP:MUSIC) or unwritten rule (last three/four) to support keeping, I think that, by default, we should delete this article about a minor contestant on a talent show who has not done anything notable since. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I also note the possibility of redirecting to Britain's Got Talent? Master of Puppets 16:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 13:34, 14 October 2009 edit Sceptre (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors 78,295 edits →‎Greg Pritchard: Delete ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:48, 14 October 2009 edit undo Master of Puppets (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 28,455 edits →‎Greg Pritchard: comment Next edit →
Line 46:		Line 46:

	* '''Delete''' "one event" in Wikipedia terms doesn't mean "one discrete event", it refers more to a continuous event with often clear starting and ending points. Without another notability guideline (like WP:MUSIC) or unwritten rule (last three/four) to support keeping, I think that, by default, we should delete this article about a minor contestant on a talent show who has not done anything notable since. '''[[User:Sceptre\|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre\|talk]])</sup> 13:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)		* '''Delete''' "one event" in Wikipedia terms doesn't mean "one discrete event", it refers more to a continuous event with often clear starting and ending points. Without another notability guideline (like WP:MUSIC) or unwritten rule (last three/four) to support keeping, I think that, by default, we should delete this article about a minor contestant on a talent show who has not done anything notable since. '''[[User:Sceptre\|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre\|talk]])</sup> 13:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

			* '''Comment''' May I also note the possibility of redirecting to [[Britain's Got Talent]]? [[User talk:Master of Puppets\|<span style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;">'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] 16:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)