Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Richards

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 on whether these clearly public figures are sufficiently notable for their own articles. Some may choose to pursue a merge, which doesn't require AfD. Copyvio should be removed on sight without waiting for AfDs to close, incidentally. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Angelique Richard

Also: Wanita "D. Woods" Woodgette, Shannon Bex, Wanita Woodgett, Dawn Angelique Richard, Aubrey O'Day, Aundrea Fimbres... did I miss any? Not much to suggest these are anything other than nn vanity articles. Googling "Dawn Richards"+ "Danity Kane" returns 42 hits. As for Woodgette, half the article is copyvio, the rest says that the band's first album won't be released for two months. There is a claim of ~~notoriety~~ notability, however, with the P.Diddy connection. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what seems useful and not a copyvio in the Danity Kane article, delete all the rest. -- Koffieyahoo 04:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each member of the group has a history and each member of the group will do things outside of the group in the future. Just because some of the articles are short now doesn't mean they won't expand in the upcoming weeks/months; most of them were just recently created because the group has just began to gain notoriety.
Keep per above post. She is part of a group that was famous for months on television and is about to release it's first album in late August. This article and the other members will subsequently expand. Squadoosh 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom WP:BIO not notable, or mergeto 'Making the band3'. In defense of deletion, their past seems not so notable. 68.84.243.47 states they may go on and do other notable things. With respect, most of the Wanita Woodgett and Aundrea Fimbres articles appear to be about 'making the band', with personal details are stubs about non-notables, so it would make sense to merge into Danity Kane or Making The Band or "list of people in making the band". WP:NOT wiki is not a crystal ball, and individual articles can be created as and when/if these people DO become notable in their own right. Ohconfucius 08:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability slowly being established, they even get a mention on Fox FM (United Kingdom). Article could be expanded. --TheM62Manchester 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the band article. If more information about individuals comes about in future, I have nothing against recreation of the articles Localzuk ^(talk) 13:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Appears to me to be a set of vanity articles. --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as not (yet) notable Marcus22 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --P199 17:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- Alias Flood 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only people who would ever stumble upon these articles would have a rather different opinion on their notability. That's right, notability is an opinion, despite whatever arbitrary NN rules are in place. Cdcon 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: notability is not "an opinion". It is, by definition, an objective matter and - in cases such as this - it is a thing to be established by reference to reputable sources. Those sources are insufficient in this case at this point in time. Marcus22 12:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Generally, I don't think winning a reality show makes someone notable unless they become notable on their own. If the album makes it big, then we need an article on the BAND, and that is it. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V - what else is there? WilyD 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Danity Kane article. No need for individual articles on each band member at this time; perhaps with greater notability later in their careers. Fairsing 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there have been two seasons of a television show, a making the video, and now an album released by these artists, there are enough resources available to be collated and archived here. If one disagrees that there is enough notaraity now, what is the point in deleting if there is great likelihood that notaraity will be achieved at a later date? Pvodenski 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. They are now a part of America Pop Culture and media. They are musicians with TV time, video time and concert time. They have an album arriving in a week. Expansion will most definitely occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.220.5 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 August 2006
Keep. The article may require cleanup, but each member of the group has been involved in other endeavors before the creation of the band. Also, the group is gaining more and more notoriety as of late, and people will want to read about the members of the band as well as the band itself. CTVampSlayer August 12, 2006. (UTC)
Keep It gives a look into the fans favorite member of the group like Destiny's Child and TLC's pages even if they're not that popular yet. AJ Blakeney
Keep If individual members of the Pussycat Dolls and Eden's Crush get their own wikipedia pages, I don't see why these girls can't. They all seem to somewhat fall in the same category. Plus, the girls of Danity Kane are slowly gaining even more notability as their album release draws nearer (Aug 22) and they are appearing in more magazines. Their individual official web sites are also getting more hits and becoming more fleshed out, so there should be more information available for use by the wikipedia community (in terms of WP:V and giving each girl their own individual entry). logsmein 23:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This group is becoming very popular, being constantly featured on Yahoo Buzz, being the Number 1 Music Artist on Myspace, and being on the top of MTV Artist pages. Their album will be released Aug 22, and the girls are starting to get a lot of publicity. Therefore, it would be unfair to close this page down strictly for the reason that this band is not popular. Also, if other bands have sites for their individual artists, it makes sense to allow these individual members to have their own parts as well. each girl will have their own fanbases who will want to read about the particular members. Jennayy 23:37, 14 August 2006 (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.