Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Leitao

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --bainer (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Leitao

Ashley Leitao (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The subject is a failed candidate in Canadian Idol who fails WP:BIO with no assertion of notability, although this fact is disputed by User:Viridae, who opposed speedy by removing [Edit: an administrator removed] the tag outright. No noteworthy achievements since the show, AFAICT. Ohconfucius 03:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep because I easily found multiple, independent, reliable published sources having the subject as their topic and have added these to the article. Sancho McCann 03:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I removed the speedy deletion template during a run on the backlog at CAT:CSD. CSD A7 specifically says no assertion of notability, notability is most definately asserted, the article stating she was a canadian idol contestant (as I already said on your talk page). All that said, having flash in the pan fame for being on Candadian idol (or any other "idol show") does not in my opinion make her notable. ViridaeTalk 04:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. It is not the flash in the pan fame for being a Canadian Idol that makes her notable -- it's the multiple, independent, reliable, published sources having her as a primary subject that make her notable. Notability is permanent and does not diminish if the frequency of publications decreases with time. Sancho McCann 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I realise what you are saying, but considering the amount of publicity generated by the program itself, all those non-trivial sources must be taken with a pinch of salt. Ie, because the program and therefore contestants were being marketed as commodities for the duration of the show by corporations with a huge market reach, then to be dropped once they are off it I don't think they are still notable - will someone really care about her in 100 years time? ViridaeTalk 04:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, I agree, but the notability guidelines don't consider our (your, ohconfucious's and my) reservations about this type of subject being included. We should propose some changes to the guideline. Since the topic of this conversation is changing, perhaps we should move this conversation out of the AfD as well, I've started a discussion on Ohconfucius's talk page.Sancho McCann 04:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok, if ONC agrees to having it there. Or it can be a sub-page of my talk page if you want. ViridaeTalk 04:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Failed game show contestants are not notable. The sources included in her bio do not establish her notability independant of the Canadian Idol show. As such, her mention should be on that article only. If her band meets WP:BAND at some point, then the article should be recreated, but not before. Resolute 05:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete The editors have at least added some references, but on examingthem the references do not make a strong case for notability. Her fame is as a failed Canadian Idol contestant, and several of the references are press releases from the Canadian Idol site, which is arguably not independent. References 2,3, and 4 are press coverage from July 28-30 2005, that she was booted off the show for low vote totals, and certainly count as one good reference. Ref 5 is a press release from the Canadian defense department listing 15 acts on a morale boosting tour, and she gets passing mention as part of one of the 15 groups. Ref 7 is only trivial coverage in a story about a skater, Elvis Stoiko, mentioning that he recorded a track with her for the album. She and 2 other contestants were put in an album, "Braided.". Did it make it big in Canadian pop charts? There is no evidence that it was a hit. There was talk they might go on a tour. Did they? No sign of it. So in summary she has the potential to be notable, but is not there yet. Most of the sources are not really solid ones, being press releases or trivial passing reference. Inkpaduta 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Completely agree that, of the 7 references, the two from CTV fail independence, two are "trivial mentions", 2 others are strictly of local interest, whereas national sources are required, so there is thus only one good reference. In short, she fails WP:BIO. I would hesitate having even a line about her in the Burnaby article. Ohconfucius 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Mainly due to the Canadian defense dept. listing plus the others. It adds up to notability for me. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Ashley is not the focus of that article, but rather is simply mentioned as being there. This would be considered a trivial mention per WP:N. Resolute 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm certain that the Canadian Defense dept hires tens of thousands of contractors. By that logic, any article indicating the name of an individual or corporation which supplies the DoD would suggest notability. Surely that's pushing the boat out a long way? Ohconfucius 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, closer examination of the article, it appears that she does not even perform for the DOD. The paragraph is about Casey LeBlanc, and merely talks about them together in 'Braided'. Trivial upon trivial. Ohconfucius 03:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, I included that reference not to establish notability, but to give a reference to her new music group. Sancho McCann 02:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per So You Were On (Insert Name Here) Idol... She could get there some day, but is not there yet. Fundamental Dan 19:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Question: I couldn't find the "so you were on ... idol" reference you mentioned. Where is it on that page? Sancho McCann 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps a better link would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.P. Calderon (2nd nomination), which is basically an article about a Survivor contestent that received a Keep AFD result recently after some otherwise heated debate. Dugwiki 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The Insert Name Here bit was actually a link that pointed to WP:NOTABILITY. It was my attempt at humor on a day that I did not get much sleep. I was trying to point out that just being on a TV reality show is not enough for notability to be established. FYI, I actually did work on an article with this title in my user page area. I just am not sure if I will keep it, since I have a quirky sense of humor that some folks do not get. If you want to check that page out, it is at User:Fundamentaldan/idol. Sorry for the confusion. Fundamental Dan 22:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While most of the other related afds have no published articles included in their references, this article does. In fact, it seems to have multiple articles specifically about this person from different verifiable published sources. That alone would meet WP:BIO 's notability recommendation of "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." (Most of these are not "trivial" articles about her.) And beyond that, it looks like she has minor references indicating possibly notable appearances outside of Idol too. So while most of the other similar articles about these contestents don't have sufficient verification of notability, this does and should be kept. Dugwiki 23:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Enough material to at least merit a small article. - Denny 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as television fancruft. Everybody will have their 15 minutes eventually. NetOracle 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, reality finalists meet WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that game show contestants meet WP:BIO again? Resolute 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • "[T]elevision personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Idol isn't a "game show." --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment: If you are to quote from WP:BIO, I suggest you did it properly: it actually says " Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. It is weighted against contestants, and members of the audience who are plucked out to participate in the proceedings Ohconfucius 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
          • It's assumed that said personalities - like these - are "notable." --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, it is. It is a show where people compete for prizes. Textbook definition of a game show, no matter what misnomer is applied to the sub-genre. These people are not personalities, but contestants. No more notable than a loser on Jeopardy!. Resolute 15:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
          • That very much belittles the social and cultural impact these people have in relation to actual "game shows," as opposed to reality television, which is an entirely different beast. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
            • The social and cultural impact of these individuals is virtually nil. You might argue that The Idol series of shows has had an impact, but that does not automatically transfer to every failed contestant. Resolute 15:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
              • How aware of the Idol phenomenon are you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Very, however that doesn't address the point. Even you refer to the show when talking about the phenomenon, not the contestants. There is no evidence that Ashley Leitao has any notability separate from the show. Resolute 15:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • There doesn't have to be. Her "notability" exists because of the show. She's "notable" on her own because of her achievements there. We wouldn't remove Donald Faison's article because his "notability" is tied directly to Scrubs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • Faison is best known for Scrubs, yes, but he has also starred in several major movies and television shows. His notability is not tied to any one show. Leitao has zero notability outside of being a contestant on Canadian Idol. What little information can be said about her belongs in Canadian Idol (Season 3), unless she establishes any kind of independant notability. She may do that with her band, but that would be crystal balling at this time. Resolute 16:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • Independent notaiblity is established, not that it has to be. That's the point.--badlydrawnjeff talk 16:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • Resolute, so, the difference is the Faison became notable individually when he attained multiple sources of notability? (Not sources like "media references", but sources like "tv show a", "news event b", "tabloid controversy c", etc). The current guidelines don't require this, they require only that multiple published references exist, (I am assuming this means even if they are because of one source of notability). However, this could make sense as a change to the notability guidelines for people... that they must have multiple sources of notability, not just multiple references to one source of notability. For example, mayors would pass this test not automatically, if the only articles about them are because they won the election; they would pass this test after they made their next decision that causes multiple articles to be published containing them as a subject. Again, this isn't part of the guideline yet, so my vote is staying as keep, but it makes much sense to require multiple sources of notability (almost amounting to prolonged notability) for inclusion in Wikipedia. I will introduce this in the discussion on the WP:BIO.Sancho McCann 17:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
                        • Even if you assume the only reason she has received independent published articles is due to her being on Idol, and even if you assume Idol is "just a game show", that still is enough to meet notability guidelines. Articles about people who are solely notable for being on a game show are allowed, provided they receive multiple published sources. Otherwise we wouldn't have Category:Game show contestants, which is mainly to handle articles about people who are only notable for having been on a game show. Additional coverage outside of multiple published articles about her being on Idol is therefore icing on the cake and not actually mandatory. Dugwiki 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, I would suggest that outside of the local paper article on her, all of the coverage she has recieved is trivial, and incidental. The articles are about Canadian Idol, she just happens to get mentioned for being that weeks loser. While it is poorly defined at present, I would suggest that the "notability is not newsworthiness" caveat of WP:N would apply: just because she was in the news does not make her notable. I could find multiple, independent articles on every violent criminal in North America, but that hardly makes them all notable. The problem here is that the hype and popularity of the Idol series of programs is creating unwarranted focus on individuals who otherwise wouldnt merit any kind of mention. There is no reason why these minute little bio's of singers that contain very little other than the songs they sang on the show can't be left in the season articles for foo Idol. Resolute 19:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --Djsasso 19:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I believe being in the top 12 of Canadian Idol warrents notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:36, 11 February 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.