Talk:American Idol season 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Record Deal[edit]

I have found articles stating that Hollie and Elise have both also signed onto deals and are producing an album --BuoyDog (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American Idol (season 11). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on DeAndre Brackensick standalone article[edit]

Consensus is that Brackensick should not have a standalone article, and should be covered as part of American Idol (season 11). Jpcase has presented sources, but the consensus seems to be that they all derive from Brackensick's American Idol fame and that Brackensick fails WP:ONEVENT. As Jpcase put it in the DRV, the question is: Should we discount certain coverage from denoting individual notability on Brackensick, just because we feel that this coverage is directly tied to Brackensick's involvement with a single event? The answer is yes. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is American Idol season 11 eighth place finalist DeAndre Brackensick notable enough to receive a standalone article? --Jpcase (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • No -- This is television, people who appear on television are not notable merely because they appear on television. This is an encyclopedia, after all. Damotclese (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Comment from RfC initiator: In September 2015, an AfD was opened for DeAndre Brackensick and closed as a redirect. You can see the conversation here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Brackensick - but to summarize, the main reason given for Redirection / Deletion seems to have been that Brackensick had failed to receive coverage separate from his association with American Idol. I wasn't a participant in the AfD, as I was unaware of it at the time. Although I feel that the closing administrator, Samwalton9, handled things properly based on the conversation that took place, I personally feel quite strongly that the article should have been kept. I've shared my reasons with Samwalton9 - and he/she's expressed openness towards having the article restored, so long as a consensus to that end can be achieved.

Unfamiliar with the process of article restoration, I wasn't entirely sure how to best proceed. Two conversations about this matter have already taken place - one at Talk:DeAndre Brackensick and the other at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 December 9. Ultimately, it was decided by those who were involved that opening an RfC here would be a preferable course of action.

A few of the AfD's original participants have expressed reluctance or opposition towards having the article restored. Their reasoning appears to be largely based on the notion that Brackensick is only notable for a single event. I've explained my own views on the matter in the two prior conversations. Anyone who is interested in reading all the details can go over there (or ask me for further clarification), but I've been told to keep things relatively brief here, so I'll try to distill my views into a couple of main points.

First of all, it should be recognized that the purpose of WP:ONEEVENT is not to prohibit standalone articles from being created about individuals who are only notable for a single event. If that were the case, then countless quality articles currently on Wikipedia would have to be deleted or redirected. Rather, the guideline allows for such articles under certain conditions. To quote WP:ONEEVENT directly: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate".

The guideline doesn't specifically state how the significance of an event or an individual's role therein should be determined, so I recognize that these factors may be somewhat subjective. I just realized however, that WP:IDOL lays out clear criteria for determining when to create standalone articles for Idol series contestants. Although I recognize that consensuses achieved on WikiProjects are not necessarily binding (and this particular WikiProject happens to be inactive), the guidelines at WP:IDOL state that "finalists should qualify for their own article based on their participation in the show". In the context of American Idol's eleventh season, the "finalists" are considered to be the top 13 - Brackensick placed eighth.

It should also be noted that American Idol and its contestants have always received a wealth of RS coverage. I could understand redirecting articles for contestants in some other reality shows, but American Idol was the top-watched show in the US for several years, and the quality of sourcing that exists for the show reflects that. If there's any objective way of determining when to create a standalone article for an individual "only notable for a single event", then I feel that it should be through the coverage that he or she has received for that event. Any American Idol finalist would likely qualify for their own article under that criteria.

Even if we were to discount Brackensick's notability through Idol, (and I don't feel that we should), he's also received significant coverage for his music career. Here are the sources that I've been able to find:

  • York Dispatch: [2] [3] (written by a professional blogger on staff with the newspaper)
  • The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: [4] [5] (Although Brackensick isn't the primary focus of these sources, he's discussed in some amount of detail and in a context that is mostly separate from his association with Idol)
  • Metro Silicon Valley: [6] (Same situation as the two sources above)
  • TVNZ1 (New Zealand's primary state broadcasting network): [7]
  • Campbelltown MacArthur Advertiser: [9]

--Jpcase (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You've been told at AfD, DRV and at the redirect's talk page that there is not enough to show notability, at the latter two with all the same sources you've listed here. This RfC is WP:TEND if I've ever seen it. I'll be nice and give you the chance to withdraw it prior to seeking sanctions. You seriously need to drop the stick. Because you cannot seem to understand notability is not everyone else's problem. John from Idegon (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John from Idegon: I'm trying to be respectful here...so I have to say that I'm taken aback by your tone. I recognize that I may be pressing this matter too hard, and if I've crossed a line, then I apologize - sincerely.
That said, I was never even involved in the AfD; the editors who participated in the discussion at Talk:DeAndre Brackensick told me to take the matter to DRV, and the editors who participated in the discussion there, told me to take the matter here. I'm only doing what others have advised me to do. I even sought input from Samwalton9, the original AfD's closing administrator, before opening the RfC here - specifically because I didn't want to take any actions that might be seen as inappropriate. Samwalton9 indicated to me that seeking further input on this issue wouldn't be out of line. If you have a problem with my desire to restore the article, then I wish you had spoken up during one of the prior discussions. I'm willing to hear whatever you have to say, but please, try to discuss things with me civilly, before resorting to threats of sanction. --Jpcase (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The closer at deletion review told you that you needed to be more succinct, and you respond by writing an arguement of epic proportions here. I tell you your wasting everyone's time with the repeated rehashing of the same information and you respond with another volume. Suggest you stop worrying about getting this nobody's article into the encyclopedia and practice concision. I didn't respond because I don't have time to read all the crap you're writing. But I will respond to this.John from Idegon (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John from Idegon: Look - I've probably made mistakes in how I've handled this issue. I won't deny that. Generally, I try to steer clear of policy disagreements on Wikipedia. So all of this has been somewhat unfamiliar ground for me. I recognize that brevity isn't one of my strong suits. And I'm aware that the DRV's closing administrator advised me to keep things more concise. I genuinely tried to keep my initial comment on this page short, but there was a lot of ground to cover - the first half was all about providing contextual background info and had almost nothing to do with my personal views. Would you rather that new participants in this discussion not know of the two prior conversations that took place?
Again, I'll admit that I may be pressing this matter too hard. And if other editors agree with you that this RfC should be closed, then I'm willing to consider going that route. My intention isn't to force my views on anyone else. That said, I was hoping to have an engaged, respectful conversation with other editors about policy matters. So far, I've offered detailed (if admittedly long-winded) explanations for my views and received very few rebuttals. Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying - I recognize that some editors have expressed opposition towards restoring the article. But when it comes to addressing specific points that I've raised, such as my interpretation of WP:ONEEVENT, people have been mostly silent. I'm willing to accept consensus, even if I don't receive the specifics that I'm looking for. But it would be nice to hear why people think that I'm misinterpreting policy, if for no other reason than so that I can understand going forward where I've gotten things wrong. --Jpcase (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions do not match your words. You've shown a decided unwillingness to accept concensus. People have explained it all to you. You are simply not listening. John from Idegon (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In favor of a separate article[edit]

Oppose a separate article[edit]

  • Oppose rebooting the separate article. Still fails NMUSIC. The new sources lack detail. Still ONEEVENT. Nothing of substance has changed in the few months since the AfD. Nothing at ALL has changed since the talk page discussion and the deletion review. This is a waste of editor's time. John from Idegon (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Fails WP:NMUSIC.Perfect. WP:ONEEVENT.We don't need sources but only reliable sources.I would assume good faith and ask the initiator to point out the specific additions to the list of reliable sources that happened after the last deletion discussion and the consequent review.Light❯❯❯ Saber 09:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for the polite response. All of the sources that I listed above, starting with Yahoo! and ending with the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, were discovered after the AfD. I welcome any specific criticisms of these sources that you may have. My understanding though, is that all eleven of them should qualify as RS. --Jpcase (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose having a separate article – unless some other editor, having reviewed your eleven sources "discovered after the AfD" finds (unlike User:John from Idegon) that even one of them is a reliable source. Sorry I can't make time to review any of the sources myself. yoyo (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on American Idol (season 11). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Idol (season 11). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Idol_season_11&oldid=1215824720"