Deletion of Susan Boyle

Comment: Obviously,  is not very popular. It is, however, policy, and this subject is known for one event and the coverage surrounding it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per : "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Sources are reliable, independent, and coverage is significant. That was my thought process
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: to Britain's Got Talent (series 3), currently the sole reason she is recieving #NEWS| news coverage is her apearance on the television show, if that changes in the future or the amount of relevent information becomes unmanagable an independent article could be |split off
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:SS)

Comment: I don't know what the article looked like at the time of nomination, but after looking at it just now, it definitely meets the amount of substantial coverage in |reliable sources needed to provide |notability. I can't think of any other reality show/talent show contestant to receive this amount of coverage after only one appearance, either. And to reply to the merge option, I don't see it as practical to merge the content into the article for the show, as I think it would make that one section far too long and lopsided compared to the sections on the other contestants
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: There are at least two distinct events to cover: (1) a talent-show performance (2) an explosion of YouTube views (currently way over 5,000,000) within four days. These are related, but separately notable.  does not apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: lots of good sources show regular old notability.  However, it could be #NEWS|a "not news" problem
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: and consider merging.  Why wasn't this one sentence stub simply merged into the Britain's Got Talent page, instead of being immediatly nominated for deletion, which ignored  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: First there are enough  to cover this.  Second, while perhaps a fairly gray area, I see the Idol show as one event, and the YouTube popularity as a different event (even though they are directly related).  I think this meets our  requirements.  for those saying "at this time", I might add that notability is not temporary.  I'm also not particularly fond of the way this was |forum shopped at the help desk and village pump simply because someone didn't like the fact that consensus seems to be a keep.  See: OTPAPER Also, YouTube is not being used as a "resource" to establish a contentious fact, but rather an indication that an event has occurred, which by wide-spread viewership, indicates a secondary event notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:FORUMSHOP||WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: clearly a case of .  From the policy: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. ... a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. '''Cover the event, not the person.'''"  For now, a redirect to the show's article should suffice.  If she goes on to have notable, verifiable success, then she'll merit a separate article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per , until such time as this lady becomes notable for more than just this one event. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: The woman is an international sensation, for God's sake, and looks like she's going to stay that way. She's clearly in the top of the running for Britain's Got Talent, and it is clear that she will remain notable. Also, is it me or is it |snowing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: It's true that she has been covered repeatedly in the news, but per , that's not really a justified reason for an article. The policy says "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." If/when she becomes actually notable for something other than singing once on a show, then we can discuss the recreation of the article. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment:  is for articles about people where the event received the coverage not the person and that person essentially remains low profile while the event enjoys notoriety.  The coverage of Boyle is about Boyle herself, not the event.  Boyle has received international attention and will likely continue to receive it.  Coverage mentions her by name and is focused on her.    is a useful guideline for avoiding a plethora of articles on non-notable people swept up in notable events but it doesn't apply here.—Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: this is a classic case of a media blitz article; ''of course'' there's tons of hits and a media reaction, because this just happened yesterday (figuratively speaking), and it's news.  It is important to note however, that WP is not news.  What Boyle is at this moment is an auditioner for a show, which is not notable in and of itself.  If and when she: a) gets into and wins the competition; b) gets a contract and releases an album; or c) does something else tangibly notable that illustrates the ''non-transience'' of her fame, then we can consider an article on her.  A perception of notability or future notability based on one event is definite  and in some cases .  Let something actually happen, and I would have no qualms about an article on her, but guessing something will happen is really not on
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: into Britain's Got Talent (series 3), per all the above, , etc.  "''The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry.''"  When she wins, recreate
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Meets ;  doesn't apply because reliable sources are already writing biographical stories on the individual and so in that sense there's no real "event" to cover.  The only remaining question is whether this individual should have her own article or whether it should be merged into the article of the series, but that's a stylistic question better answered in another discussion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: WP:N|Notability comes down to one thing - has the subject received non-trivial coverage by |independent, third-party sources? In this case, the answer is http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Susan%20Boyle%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn a resounding '''yes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per  - she'll be chip wrapping in a couple of weeks - and if not, recreate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: Clearly falls under  - "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: no, that's not a typo).  99% of contestants in reality shows don't warrant their own article, per , and third party coverage is usually limited to articles about the show and perhaps in their own towns' local papers, but not only has coverage on this one shot round the world, some of the coverage is starting to talk about Boyle in her own right (her life, where she lives etc.)  Now, if she fails horribly in the competition proper then the information could be merged to the show article, but at the moment I believe it would be premature to do that.  Call it 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:IAR)

Comment: into Britain's Got Talent (series 3) which is bizarrely light on details for a typical reality show article.  The problem is ecentism, it's notable now and briefly but long-term, that's debatable.  All the sources (excluding the non-reliable ones like YouTube and Digg) are really just discussing her audition, a classic  situation.   If she actually becomes famous on her own, then spin it off into a new article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: for now, per several users above. At this point, there's really no telling how famous she's going to become. For now, at least, she has been recognized by many different media outlets as having a notable performance (because of which I would support a name change to Susan Boyle's performance on Britain's Got Talent or something, if it would help with the  problem). '''-Bwowen is now a
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)