Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Holt (second 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Holt (second nomination)

Paul Holt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Dalejenkins has deleted and redirected this article twice as non-notable; however, in its last nomination there was no consensus. I created this article, and last time it was I who nominated it for deletion. However, since then I have changed my mind and I believe that the article should be kept. I am only adding this article here because an anon editor tried to add it for deletion but did not do it properly, and also so that we can try to reach a consensus on whether the article should be kept, in light of Dalejenkins concerns. ^Tom_Phil 14:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, if the article stays as is, without citing non-trivial second party references then I can predict the outcome of this AfD without a crystal ball Alf^Photoman 15:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 15 minutes of fame based on his non-notability. Bobanny 18:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination. Dalejenkins 08:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete failed reality show contest and failed novelty act. That equal fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 09:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete same as Nuttah68's comments. 80.43.22.203 10:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can't see the merit in removing genuinely informative and referenced material off Wikipedia. Yes, maybe it's not the sort of thing that would appear in the Encyclopædia Britannica but then isn't the great thing about Wikipedia the fact that it has articles of the type that don't appear in the mainstream encyclopædias? Is Paul Holt really any less notable than, say, Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116? This information does not exist in any other Wikipedia article and may genuinely be of interest and/or use to some people. The truth is that while he does not technically comply with the guidelines set down, he did release a record on a major record label which made the top 40. There was also quite a reasonable amount of media coverage at the time, and Paul Holt was invited to sing on national TV (the Xtra Factor). This article has suvived on Wikipedia now since 2004 without doing any damage to the project or harming anyone. What possible purpose is served by deleting it? It's simply a case of following the rules strictly over common sense. ^Tom_Phil 18:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm afraid 'What about this article?' and 'It does no harm?' are false arguments that have been around longer than the article. Nuttah68 18:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete I don't usually comment on people in this field, but i was struck by the phrase "he has appeared in the audition phase of ..." DGG 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete There may be a case for adding one line about this gentleman under an "Interesting Events" section of the The X Factor's page, but under WP:Music and WP:Bio he is not notable enough for his own article. His history so far is that he faired badly in an audition show, released a single anyway (which also faired badly) and hasn't subsequently done anything, so that rules him out under WP:Bio. In terms of WP:Music there don't seem to be any non trivial sources that I can find, so it seems he woudl fail that too. His lower end charting with a novelty single should perhaps be mentioned on the The X Factor page as noted above. I note that the creator has invoked a WP:WAX on Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 and I also note that this improbably long-named Swede's article has already survived an AfD debate - so Wikipedia has therefore already answered that question. A1octopus 11:52, 5 March 2007 (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.