Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Phripp

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. BJ^Talk 06:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Phripp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Self created biography, fails WP:Note Blowdart | ^talk 19:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's self created at all. Sam Phripp is a potential representative of the UK at the Eurovision song contest. He surely deserves a wiki page as he will soon be more well known than he is now. He is currently working with channel 4. One of the biggest channels in the UK. It shouldn't be deleted. Terrazio (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this deletion at all. Sam Phripp has been an internet sensation since the Yeardot project began on June 30th. His star is only set to rise. As for not being notable enough, tell that to the thousands hitting yeardot.co.uk every day, a total so far of 134,000. Rest my case? Harrietsouth (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)— Harrietsouth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - I note strong similarities in language and style in the above posts by Users Terrazio and Harrietsouth. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete - actual news coverage Terrazio (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - A single blog post on a eurovision blog web site is not notable. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - It was returned by Google news. Is therefore News. Meaning Sam is newsworthy..meaning he should have a wiki page Terrazio (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible logic. Google News is just a search engine. JuJube (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - It doesn't mean it is notable in terms of WP:NN. A single newspaper article is neither note-worthy nor does it provide evidence acceptable to WP:MUSIC unless it was one heck of an article, and it isn't. I have two myself for volunteer work, that doesn't mean I'm notable either fr33kman (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment - You need to understand that just because something makes the news does not mean it should be included in an encyclopedia. A pig falling into a well probably would make the news. That does not mean that the pig should get a page on Wikipedia, does it? Wait until he does something that is really note-worthy. fr33kman (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable autobiography - author is Samphripp (talk · contribs). Wikipedia is not here for self-promotion. If his claim to fame is appearing in a TV show, look at WP:ENTERTAINER for the notability threshold for a "TV personality". As far as the Eurovision song contest goes, it's easy to want to get on it - if he actually gets in, then he can have an article. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable at this time. fails WP:MUSIC fr33kman (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. On top of the source already provided, and ignoring the usual bebo, youtube, myspace links, the only sources I've found are the following: ([1], [2], [3]). That is, an interview with, and press release published on, Oiko Times, and a message on a blog, which seems to incorporate much of the press release. I suspect Oiko Times isn't reliable, although it does have some editorial staff, and in any case, a claim to notability should be based on articles from more than one source. The other claim to notability, being on Year Dot, isn't enough to justify an article, although some mention should (and is) made on the Yeardot article. Silverfish (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable. As for the comments that he soon wil be: see WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Crusio (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possible WP:AUTO that anyway fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. If Sam does actually get to rep Eurovision UK, then by all means create a page then - and using the WP guidelines to article requirements. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• don't delete what about this???? http://www.moopy.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=54569! SEE he's well known 82.42.92.104 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think that this counts as a reliable source, even if it is verifiable....--Crusio (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (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.