Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Stude62 (talk | contribs)
4,454 edits
No edit summary
Line 568: Line 568:
*'''Strong Keep''': This lady is going to be big. She is famous worldwide and has a huge media interest. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wacky WeLsH LaD|Wacky WeLsH LaD]] ([[User talk:Wacky WeLsH LaD|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wacky WeLsH LaD|contribs]]) 12:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Strong Keep''': This lady is going to be big. She is famous worldwide and has a huge media interest. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wacky WeLsH LaD|Wacky WeLsH LaD]] ([[User talk:Wacky WeLsH LaD|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wacky WeLsH LaD|contribs]]) 12:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Strong Keep''': As per above. Also I only came to Wikipedia once today and it was to look up information on Ms.Boyle after seeing a report on her on CNN.[[User:Colincbn|Colincbn]] ([[User talk:Colincbn|talk]]) 12:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''': As per above. Also I only came to Wikipedia once today and it was to look up information on Ms.Boyle after seeing a report on her on CNN.[[User:Colincbn|Colincbn]] ([[User talk:Colincbn|talk]]) 12:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''STRONG Keep''' The only reason why Wikipedia snobbery has named this article for possible deletion is because they perceive Ms. Boyle as a pop cultural oddity. This is Wikipedia snobbery at its worst, and this is the exact reason why I bailed on Wikipedia as a contributor four years ago. Folks, this web site is not, and will never be Encyclopedia Britannica; a place when the academic elite sit around for years arguing over how many angles dance on the head of a pin before they will agree to place an article in the tome that pins actually exist. This woman has incredible talent '''and''' she is a legitimate worldwide phenomena in the short run. She also has more talent than Sarah Brightman on Brightman's best day. [[User:Stude62|Stude62]] ([[User talk:Stude62|talk]]) 12:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:56, 15 April 2009

Susan Boyle

Susan Boyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

At this moment, she does not satisfy notability guidelines. Yes, she may have been noted by the media, but she is just "another auditionee" on a TV talent show. D.M.N. (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I encourage everyone to look at this column on Ms. Boyle. She has progressed beyond fame for a single event. Her fame is in her biography and story now, and in that symbolism for the possibility of that despite age or looks. She isn't famous because she can sing - many can. She is famous for being who she is. Individuals with full bios who were killed on 9/11 are the same way. WP:BLP1E is about those from news stories. She is clearly beyond a news story. --\/\/slack (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube does not establish notability. This has been repeated countless times. Antivenin 16:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the Times and the Telegraph combined do establish notability. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for YouTube, the awards that this clip recieved already should make it notable:


I oppose merging; I will do a little legwork and expand it, I just did a little... let some of the media catch up, the performance wasn't even 24 hours ago yet. While I always strive to maintain a NPOV, I must point out the sheer quality of her performance... standing ovation from the judges, the entire crowd, after just the first vocal left her lips. TR3ap3R.inc (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned yourself, you're not looking at this from a NPOV. Her performance must have been amazing, but that doesn't mean she deserves her own article in an encyclopedia. That would mean deleting it if she messes up her song one day. Antivenin 16:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep is NOT applicable here. There are enough people !voting for delete. Antivenin 16:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please refrain from !voting twice. Antivenin 16:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
they voted when it was a one sentence stub; read the reasoning. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, over 50,000 Ghits for Susan Boyle in the past 30 days. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a ton more refs and related pages, including The Herald, Reddit, and CNET (news.com) R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm counting at least four dozen stories from a number of reliable sources on Google News primarily discussing the subject of this article. It seems her notability is not dependent on the show itself, which would rule out merging the singer's article into the show's article. Notability may not be temporary, but our ability to distinguish notability may be temporarily clouded, so I say keep for now, subject to review once her "long-term" notability is clearer.   user:j    (aka justen)   19:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment its BLP1E as far as I can tell. Until she wins or finishes in the runner-up spot in the competition, this should be deleted. D.M.N. (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if she loses next round right away, she will have at least as much notability as Gary Brolsma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3ap3R.inc (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble squaring that policy with people on this list. --\/\/slack (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, she has had one audition, she is no where near the final shows on TV, hence why BLP1E applies. D.M.N. (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being contrary, I don't think this coverage is based on an event (otherwise she would be no more notable than any of the myriad of bad singers who audition for any of those shows). And I hate to pull out an other stuff, but William Hung, anyone? But, in any event, I see no need to rush through a delete. I believe she is notable at this point, but it will be easier to distinguish whether that notability is tied to a single event or not in the near future.   user:j    (aka justen)   19:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense. --\/\/slack (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's a Snow keep? R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Snow. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • procedural keep No real opinion on this, but clearly deletion should be off the table. There is an obvious redirect target if people are worried about BLP1E so this doesn't really belong at AfD. This isn't AfR. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - DO NOT DELETE THIS --If wikipedia is ever to have any credibility as a source for the people as opposed to stuffy academia, this entry totally belongs to be here. She has already touched thousands, and the ball is rolling, even if she by some fluke shouldn't win there will be records and concerts in her future, the word is already spreading like wildfire across twitter,facebook, email and even word of mouth on the street. Today the UK, tomorrow the world. I don't care what Wikipedia guideline might support the deletion, then that guideline should be removed. --IceHunter (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is no longer "just another auditionee" on a talent show. She has accomplished something that is newsworthy on a worldwide scale, more so than many contestants from the past who may have gone farther in the contest. This is not about how she's doing on the awards program. It is about the cultural significance of her performance, which will be remembered long after this particular round of the show has passed, regardless of the final results. If nothing else, she is a YouTube phenomenon, similar to Gary Brolsma (who's Wikipedia entry is not in danger of deletion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimvanm (talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now May end up being a flash-in-the-pan, but deletion now would be premature. Plenty of third-party coverage, much more than for your typical contestant in a show like this. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Info: As of the end of 12 April 2009, the YouTube video was the single most viewed video of the day, the single most favorited video of the day, and one of the highest rated videos of the day. The submitter was awarded the most subscribtions of the day as well. See also the updated infobox following thisR3ap3R.inc (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that, as an anonymous IP address, my vote counts in an AfD. If it does, I would vote keep. However, I'll note either way for the record that Wikipedia's notability policy for music states that "[a] musician or ensemble (note that this includes a [...] singer [...] ) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria [...] Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." A search on Google News for articles where both the terms "Susan Boyle" and "Dreamed a Dream" are present result in 24 separate press mentions. Running a search for "Susan Boyle" and "Britain's Got Talent" yields 27 press mentions, some of which are separate from the first batch of results. Notability has, I daresay, been established multiple times as a result. On a separate note, I firmly believe Wikipedia has now overbalanced itself on the deletionist-inclusionist debate; where once it erred far too much on the inclusionist side (list of words Ewoks said in Return of the Jedi!), it now is far too deletionist, to a point where these constant acts of hairtrigger overdeletionism consistently make Wikipedia look rather foolish to the public eye. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia will always get torpedoed by everyone for one reason or another, either it's "look at this garbage they've got floating around, idiots" or "they're deleting WHAT!? Frigging wikinazis..". Doesn't mean that we don't need to keep tinkering with things, but there will never, ever be a balance which suits the vast majority. This is a group discussion initiated by one editor after all, on a project which houses millions of articles ministered by thousands of people, so if the world says "look at what Wikipedia's doing" they've misunderstood what's going on here from the outset. Someoneanother 23:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep - Meets WP:N; WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because reliable sources are already writing biographical stories on the individual and so in that sense there's no real "event" to cover. The only remaining question is whether this individual should have her own article or whether it should be merged into the article of the series, but that's a stylistic question better answered in another discussion. Oren0 (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it belongs here because I looked for it here on Wikipedia.Bcameron54 (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although she is currently "only" a first-round (second-round) contestant, she will at least at this moment remain notable enough to warrant inclusion in the database. Many people who hear about her video in the media will refer to WP for more information on the subject. 92.108.16.46 (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Britain's Got Talent (series 3) which is bizarrely light on details for a typical reality show article. The problem is WP:Recentism, it's notable now and briefly but long-term, that's debatable. All the sources (excluding the non-reliable ones like YouTube and Digg) are really just discussing her audition, a classic WP:BLP1E situation. If she actually becomes famous on her own, then spin it off into a new article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (no, that's not a typo). 99% of contestants in reality shows don't warrant their own article, per WP:BLP1E, and third party coverage is usually limited to articles about the show and perhaps in their own towns' local papers, but not only has coverage on this one shot round the world, some of the coverage is starting to talk about Boyle in her own right (her life, where she lives etc.) Now, if she fails horribly in the competition proper then the information could be merged to the show article, but at the moment I believe it would be premature to do that. Call it WP:IAR. Black Kite 09:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not to mention the rapidly growing amount of media attention that this is gaining overseas. Susan Boyle has been covered in every major newscast on national television in Australia. If attention from another country, especially for a show called "Britain's got talent," doesn't assert notability, I don't know what does. --ClEeFy (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep - while I don't agree YouTube hits matter worth a hill of beans for notability, it does seem Boyle has received enough coverage in the media to edge over the requirements for WP:N and WP:BIO (though certainly not WP:ENTERTAINER. For now, keep, but do some SERIOUS clean up, as I was personally tempted to say speedy for copyvio as the bulk of the article is beyond excessive quotes from various papers above and beyond what is allowed in an article that size. The lead is also excessively gushy. WP:MOSBIO is down the hall, someone please apply it along with some basic good writing. If she turns out to be a 1E, no objections to a revisit in 6 months. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Britain's Got Talent - after thinking on it more, decided to change my view. Still feel it needs serious clean up first, clean up the copyvio, then what's left should be merged to the series article. If, after the series is over, it can be more clearly shown she is not just a 1E, then can revisit the idea of a standalone. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seriously kids. Three times? I saw the video after seeing the AfD discussion. This morning it's on Yahoo news and the video has over 2 million hits on YouTube. Give it up. She's notable. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the general notability guideline. I'm surprised that this discussion has been relisted considering the overwhelming consensus that has already been established (maybe someone will continue relisting it until the "right" consensus is achieved?) Bradley0110 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep. Meets general notability. Substantial mention (entire articles on the subject) in dozens of major reliable sources. The article needs to evolve and will do so over time, and may ultimately end up with a focus on the performance and pop culture phenomenon rather than the bio. There is no policy or guideline against covering the subject of pop culture, television show episodes, viral videos / internet phenomena, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets our notability guideline, it's time to close this discussion. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First there are enough WP:RS to cover this. Second, while perhaps a fairly gray area, I see the Idol show as one event, and the YouTube popularity as a different event (even though they are directly related). I think this meets our WP:N requirements. for those saying "at this time", I might add that notability is not temporary. I'm also not particularly fond of the way this was forum shopped at the help desk and village pump simply because someone didn't like the fact that consensus seems to be a keep. See: WP:NOTPAPER Also, YouTube is not being used as a "resource" to establish a contentious fact, but rather an indication that an event has occurred, which by wide-spread viewership, indicates a secondary event notability. — Ched :  ?  15:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has reliable sources, we've got plenty of room to host the article, notability though currently derived from a single event, is likely to grow considering the nature of the show, plus all the relisting for dubious procedural reasons is getting out of hand. Equendil Talk 16:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Notable person. This should never have been reopened, common sense has gone out of the window. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete One appearance in an audition for a TV show does not give notability. Youtube videos and hits do not give notability. A short burst in the news does not give long-term notability. No objection to recreating if and when she is truly notable - notability of the long-term sort. --Russavia Dialogue 17:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as her fame is currently tied to just one event. Number of hit on YouTube is irrelevant, and so are the number of people comment on blogs and etc. If she does land a record deal in the future or receives additional coverage beyond this one performance, then she would pass WP:BIO. --Farix (Talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! As said quite near the beginning: <>er WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Sources are reliable, independent, and coverage is significant. She continues to be the subject of much discussion around the world. The articles and videos are being widely linked by bloggers and across Facebook; personally, I searched out the Wiki article after viewing one of those links. Only change--expand as much as possible in accordance with policies. Final note: this is Wiki (means "fast") pedia, not Encyclopedia Brittanica, This is the sort of subject/event which best takes advantage of that difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.117.74 (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Keep but source. Garynine (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). This woman is currently famous in the newspapers, even reputable ones, for one event only. That is not what notability is. At this stage (without prejudice to her going on to win), this woman is not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough" to deserve the attention of an encyclopopoedia (as opposed to the likes of OK! Magazine, This Morning, or Digital Spy), or to justify the recording of her life story (and of course record the fact she had a cat) for all time, in her own separate article. If she does not progress further, she will no doubt not even be considered "significant, interesting, or unusual enough" to warrant any more coverage at all. MickMacNee (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! Quite honestly, whoever nominated this article for deletion, and whoever votes to delete it, is an idiot. This woman is already a superstar. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • THE STRONGEST KEEP I CAN POSSIBLY EXPRESS. I agree with the person above. This woman is clearly notable and there are not enough adjectives to describe how stupid someone is who wants to delete this article. Nightmareishere (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Strong keep if one trick pony Judson Laipply has a wikipedia entry, then any notable person can have one. Susan Boyle maybe nobody to you right now...but given the way the media corps glom on to people soon there will be much more to her entry. SOME record company some where is on the phone right now negotiating a deal..and then there will be makeover shows and special performances...you will only have to recreate the thing. Give the woman her 15 minutes. EraserGirl (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This woman's performance on a well viewed TV show and subsequent news coverage makes her more notable with the British public than the "Internet Celebrities" and "Video Bloggers" that have pages on Wikipedia. Holkingers (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said it yourself. This woman's performance That's WP:ONEEVENT right there. Antivenin 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One event or not, plethora of RS coverage indicates she meets GNG. If nothing else materializes, merge in six months, but this AfD is premature since the coverage is still happening. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If she is worthy of an article now, she always will be - notability, as opposed to fame, is not temprorary, it does not fade away. The prediction that in 6 months time this will be a backwater only fit for mergeing is a clear indication it has no place here at all. We are not a giant current events dump, that needs a periodic clear out of all the information people don't care about anymore. That is why presidential assassins, and not Britain's Got Talent contestants, are given as the example of people famous for one event that are worth creating, and keeping, articles about. MickMacNee (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability never fades away? Someone who was notable at any time always deserves an encyclopedia article? I can't agree with that assertion, which I consider purely theoretical and belied by real-world scholarship. Encyclopedias mediate between now and all of previous history. We like to talk about a Neutral Point Of View, but merely in deciding what to include and what to exclude, there is of necessity a type of point of view expressed, if only on what is and is not significant enough to merit inclusion. And anyone who thinks that opinions about what should or should not be included in encyclopedias do not change over the years and centuries is welcome to do what I've done, which includes comparing 100-year-old editions of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians with more recent ones and seeing what they considered notable enough to cover, and how. Or, to make a broader point, I'm sure there were loads of notable officials in Egypt at the time of the Pharoahs and in the Roman Empire who are excluded from this encyclopedia, because in spite of their notability in those days, they are not much remembered today - as indeed today's Foreign Ministers will be forgotten in 3,000 years. So guidelines are a good thing, whether on Neutral Point of View or Notability, but we do have to live in the present and look at Ms. Boyle as currently notable. There is ample time to reconsider her notability in the light of future developments, but I beg to differ with the idea that notability never fades away. If you'd like to argue that point, I would ask you to please name some of the most important prophets of Baal or argue why without benefit of thousands of years of hindsight, they weren't notable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to coverage of "Britain's Got Talent" until she's more notable than her performance on the show. If she wins, or gets what seems to be a likely music contract, then we've got something more than just what WP:BPL1E and WP:NOT#NEWS warns against. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep THis is notable if I looked for it on wikipedia and found it to learn mroe of her. She is from the united kingdom and i know who she is. and i think it satisfies notability guidelines for music with the whole being press mentioned everywhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Oglesby (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly seems early to delete this. If she loses and fades away, sure. But it seems worth letting it go on more than a week before deleting it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Dogmatic rigidity does not reflect the nature of wikipedia or the medium it exists in. All of the rules in place here were created to address the needs that have arisen organically, the phenomenon of Ms. Boyle's appearance on the public stage indicates a need for continued evolution of those rules. Someone who generates more than eight million YouTube views in less than four days and is referenced in every form of media is obviously a notable figure. chrisblask (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If the strength of Wikipedia is not that a community of editors can come together and produce a reasonably informative article on a phenom that has captured the public's and press's attention, then let's just submit articles and edits by pen and paper and snail mail. Ideally, we could send them by transoceanic cargo to some remote atoll for collation and input, that way, by the time they arrived at their island destination for input to the encyclopedia, we'd already know if Ms. Boyle had staying power or becomes yet another flash in a pan. Until then, given the plethora of WP articles on "notable" topics far less notable than Ms. Boyle, her article deserves to remain. PetersV       TALK 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The fact that this woman has come out of nowhere in the last three days should not be a reason to remove this article. There are plenty of third party reliably sourced articles about her already and her appearance was only a few days ago.----InaMaka (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Clearly this person has garnered worldwide attention for a previously unknown talent. Don't rush to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.84.159 (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — 71.31.84.159 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strongest possible keep: The woman is an international sensation, for God's sake, and looks like she's going to stay that way. She's clearly in the top of the running for Britain's Got Talent, and it is clear that she will remain notable. Also, is it me or is it snowing? TallNapoleon (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Britain's Got Talent (series 3), currently the sole reason she is recieving news coverage is her apearance on the television show, if that changes in the future or the amount of relevent information becomes unmanagable an independent article could be split off. Guest9999 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ordinarily I'd suggest merging with BGT 2009 until she is more famous, but she has generated a great more attention than just YouTube (Op-Ed in Herald for example) and that is only going to increase. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep: She has had 4 million YouTube views in four days. I know that's not enough, but I also read that she is in record negotiations with Simon Cowell. (Can't find the source now.) Certainly deletion would be premature.Twiddlebug (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly a case of WP:ONEEVENT. From the policy: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. [...] a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." For now, a redirect to the show's article should suffice. If she goes on to have notable, verifiable success, then she'll merit a separate article. -- Intractable (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this article for she is an inspiration for many people! who cares if she isnt well known to the public eye but with that many youtube hits, its well worth it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.3.76 (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — 24.58.3.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: Ms. Boyle's story at this moment is breaking news. That wouldn't qualify it as encyclopedic material if nothing else ensued. However, it's very likely that her fame will increase shortly. Deleting the article now will only necessitate starting another one with the same title soon. Keep it and avoid the need to duplicate the work already done. Cognita (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Right now, this article is very topical. If this is only her 15 minutes of fame, she will turn into a footnote to history, and then, it will be appropriate to reconsider. But I think it would be shortsighted to nullify the good work that's been put into this article, when there's a distinct possibility that there will be reasons to enlarge the article to note various professional activities in the relatively near future. My recommendations? Let's keep the article and reconsider in 6 months to a year on the basis of what's happened. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — Restlessheart1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I want to add another argument. I expect Wikipedia to cover breaking news stories. The fact that I am sitting here in New York, having never watched Britain's Got Talent and only been dimly aware of the existence of the show, yet know about Susan Boyle shows the power of news to travel quickly across oceans in this Age of Internet. I expected that there might be a Wikipedia article about Ms. Boyle precisely BECAUSE she is newsworthy, and I was happy not to be disappointed in that expectation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She's made history. Youtube aside, her portion of the show has been shown round the world. Even if her star fades quickly, (and I hope it doesn't)her moment of fame will be remembered as one of the most emotional pieces of live TV ever. restlessheart1 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restlessheart1 (talk • contribs) — Restlessheart1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep I only found out about her on the news this morning and I immediately wondered if she had a wiki article. She is very famous now and is well beyond being just another auditionee. She is notable for the media impact she has had with her singing ability and will be remembered in years to come for this moment. It is also likely from what is being reported in the press, she will go on to win recording contracts. Keeping this article is therefore advisable. B626mrk (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ms. Boyle's notability is based not on her being "just another auditioner", but on her remarkable talent, and her very pointed object lesson of not judging a book by its cover. More to the point, she has been widely noted. Dozens of articles, millions of hits, talks with a major record label -- things that don't happen with "just another auditioner". The fact that her single, simple audition has produced such a intense, widespread response establishes her notability. Clearly, people are coming to WP looking for more information about her; it should be here for them. Darguz Parsilvan (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Things go fast. Some time ago I would had agreed not to keep. But now she is already notable... and then some - and it has gained enough momentum for gaining more notability points for Wikipedia, really soon indeed. Although even some time ago I would had (erroneously) been temped to vote for "keep" because of the obvious extraordinariness of this situation; even then maybe, just maybe it would had also been the right decision to keep. 213.7.222.25 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This lady is going to be big. She is famous worldwide and has a huge media interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wacky WeLsH LaD (talk • contribs) 12:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: As per above. Also I only came to Wikipedia once today and it was to look up information on Ms.Boyle after seeing a report on her on CNN.Colincbn (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep The only reason why Wikipedia snobbery has named this article for possible deletion is because they perceive Ms. Boyle as a pop cultural oddity. This is Wikipedia snobbery at its worst, and this is the exact reason why I bailed on Wikipedia as a contributor four years ago. Folks, this web site is not, and will never be Encyclopedia Britannica; a place when the academic elite sit around for years arguing over how many angles dance on the head of a pin before they will agree to place an article in the tome that pins actually exist. This woman has incredible talent and she is a legitimate worldwide phenomena in the short run. She also has more talent than Sarah Brightman on Brightman's best day. Stude62 (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_Boyle&oldid=283986456"