Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connie Talbot

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 no consensus. Xoloz 16:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Talbot

This girl entered a televised talent competition, and she didn't win. She has absolutely no notability independent of Britain's Got Talent, as far as I can see, and there has been debate as to whether she can be considered notable. However, during the few weeks that this programme was on, she was well known throughout Britain, the tabloids lapped her up, she appeared on national television both on BGT and on other programmes. However, in just the same way, the tabloids don't shut up about the Big Brother contestants, and we only allow articles for them if they prove themselves notable outside of the programme, which, as far as I can see, Connie has not. I am personally undecided on this article, and I think bringing it here should put an end to the debate. J Milburn 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is the media circus surrounding her annoying? That's a big resounding yes. Does that make her notable? Unfortunately so. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's advisable to keep a long term perspective: the encyclopedia is not being created just for perusal in the immediate future, but is rather supposed to catalog topics that in some way have lasting notability that transcends their temporal circumstances. I don't see that this has notability of the requisite sort. The only attention she got was tied up in the game show, and she lost. As I see it, there's not much to distinguish this from all the other losing game show contestants that have been deleted. Being a contestant on a game show, without any other achievement in particular, is practically the exemplar of transient notability. deranged bulbasaur 17:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no long-term historical notability and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for repeating what's in the tabloids. And, ah, I'm afraid I missed the coverage of Connie and had no idea who she is, which probably demonstrates that she is not as well-known throughout Britain as some might think. --Malcolmxl5 18:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Her notability is annoying, and her prospects for long-term persistence is dubious, but WP:MUSIC is very straightforward about inclusion criteria:

1. "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."

Unfortunately, she meets it ([1] [2] [3]) -Seidenstud 18:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think she should be considered under WP:MUSIC as her musical performance was just a feature on a game show. That aside, even though guidelines should be followed in most cases, they are not canon and we don't have to adhere to them if their consequences are "unfortunate" esp. when such consequences run contrary to the aims of the project with respect to coverage. deranged bulbasaur 19:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to youtube.com I was able to hear Connie Talbot sing; thanks to wikipedia.org I was able to find out a bit more about this impressive six year old girl. Wikipedia was the first hit when I typed Connie's name in Google. I agree this Wikipedia entry will enventually need to be enhanced or deleted, but today I was thankful her name was listed. You never know what people will add to a Wikipedia entry until you get one started. Wikipedia is an incredibly powerful and appreciated gathering place for information from around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.111.192 (talk • contribs)
- It seems you like it. deranged bulbasaur 19:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or, failing that, delete. No real independent notability yet, fails WP:MUSIC.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She has a Youtube video [4] from the preliminary contest with well over 8 million views, and several others totalling collectively in the millions as well. As an internet meme, she thus beats out Bus uncle and Obama girl who appear to have had fewer views of their Youtube appearances. She lost the final, but got a fair amount of press coverage for the cancelled record deal, with surprisingly, little about the actual appearance or the Youtube phenomenon. Multiple independent and reliable substantial coverages would satisfy WP:N. The Mail in June talked about her in the competition and said "On Monday night, seven million viewers saw her sing 'Somewhere Over The Rainbow' at the reality show's Birmingham auditions. She received a standing ovation and left the programme's three judges, Cowell, Amanda Holden and Piers Morgan, speechless". [5]. [6] from Express and Star says she "reduced millions of viewers to tears with her version of Somewhere Over The Rainbow, which also became an overnight hit on internet site YouTube." The Philadelphia Inquirer online site [7] and Reuters Canada [8] say that Billboard had a story about Simon Cowell cancelling her record deal. Clearly if she had won the competition, or had a successful recording career, it would be an easier call. Edison 19:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 8 Million? Wow. deranged bulbasaur 19:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you think big numbers are meaningless, you should rush to delete Obama Girl and Bus uncle for their WP:SMALLERNUMBERS. No wait, they got kept in AFDs largely because of their WP:BIGNUMBERs (which is just an essay, not a policy or guideline), so that must count for something toward notability after all, at least for internet memes. Being covered in Billboard [9] and the other press coverage of the competition goes a way toward satisfying WP:MUSIC criterion 1, which is basically the primary notability criterion. Edison 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Waxing eloquent about big numbers? deranged bulbasaur 20:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, there are sources, but these sources seem to be directly related to Britain's Got Talent. Does she really have independent notability? J Milburn 20:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If you read the sources cited here and at the article, you find multiple with substantial coverage of her performance (as opposed to passing reference in an article about the show) and about her offered-then-cancelled record deal, which is again about her and not about the show. Edison 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - she could be notable if she does something newsworthy not related to the show Corpx 02:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Britain's Got Talent, or Delete. No notability outside of the show. If she ever does anything notable other than being a contestant on a TV talent show then she can have her own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazysuit (talk • contribs)
STRONG Delete. She is somebody who entered a talent contest and lost and, er, that's it. She has achieved nothing at all. IF she does, she will warrant an entry; until she does, she doesn't warrant an entry.87.127.44.154 07:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anyone who has commented here may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bessie Cursons. J Milburn 12:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as newsworthy but not notable. If she ever becomes known as any other than as a failed reality show contestant an article can be created. Nuttah68 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.