Television Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 April 12. The result of the discussion was "withdrawn".

Shouldn't all the contestants be on the template, even if they are just black text without a link? Or would that make it too crowded? Jordan 04:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be too crowded. I just made this as a quick linky thing so I would know who has pages and it makes it considerable easier to track. -- Scorpion 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scorpion: I understand that you are upset about J.P. Calderon having an article. I don't understand why you are upset, but upset you clearly are. This does not give you the right to continually revert this template to remove the link to his article. Your nonsense reasons for removing it are, well, nonsense. The article exists on Wikipedia, he was a Survivor contestant and the AfD on it is clearly running in favor of keeping the article. You need to deal with your ownership issues regarding this template and Survivor in general, conduct yourself like a reasonable person and stop reverting this article. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule and believe me you're annoying me more than enough to get it invoked. So please get yourself a little maturity and a little perspective. Otto4711 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It says that bold means all-stars. However, I cannot see any bolded links. But, when I check the coding there is bolding in the right spots. Does it not work on some browsers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Works for me. -- Scorpion 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless it's because it's referring to a person non specifically, why is Castaway capitalized in the note about bold=all-stars —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

For personal use only so that I can keep track of whose pages were deleted.

• Pages in category: 71
  • Borneo: 8
  • Australia: 10
  • Africa: 4
  • Marquesas: 6
  • Thailand: 3
  • Amazon: 5
  • Pearl Islands: 5
  • Vanuatu: 3
  • Palau: 10
  • Guatemala: 4 original, 6 + Steph & BJ
  • Panama: 7
  • Cook Islands: 6
  • Fiji: 0
• Total: 71 Pages on template (as of 1 March 2024)

I have some concerns regarding the recent removals of articles which the removing editor deletes under the theory that the subject article "should be deleted." I am not a Survivor fan, in fact have never watched a complete episode of the show. However, as a Wikipedian, it strikes me as inappropriate and a hindrance to the project to remove links on the basis of one editor's POV that the article it links to "shouldn't" exist. If the article exists, it seems reasonable to include it on the navigational template. Otto4711 01:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, their pages were deleted. I was just bating you and you fell for it. -- Scorpion 01:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure which speedy deletion criteria this template could meet, and I don't think it's proper to speedily delete a template properly used on 58 articles. If this template deserves to be deleted, which I do not think it does, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion seems much more appropriate. --Maxamegalon2000 02:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Scorpian's explanation was good, especially the fact that there's already a cat. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a very reasonable explanation; I don't think it's grounds for speedy deletion, though. I guess the closest applicable criterion is G7 (Author requests deletion), but I think there's been too much interest and editing from other editors for that to apply. --Maxamegalon2000 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It could be considered a duplicate page since the category does the same thing. Then it would qualify. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a bit more liberal of a justification than I'd be comfortable seeing used to speedily delete a template in use. I'm not sure which criteria that fulfills, either. I'm not necessarily arguing for keeping the template; I just think it deserves some discussion, kind of like the one we're having here, only with more people. --Maxamegalon2000 03:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. Why not? I'm signing off for the night. Feel free to do so. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You know, it really doesn't matter what template we use to get it deleted... -- Scorpion 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree, and ask that you not remove my indication thereof from the template page. --Maxamegalon2000 03:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. What does it matter if I use the regular template or the other one, the end result is the same. The template really isn't useful and I basically only created it so it would be easier to keep track of who had articles and who didn't. -- Scorpion 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not discussing the merits or usefulness of the template here. I simply do not believe that sufficient grounds have been given for speedy deletion of a template used in 58 articles. I am also unsure of which criteria for speedy deletion the template meets. Perhaps you are willing to assume that the end result will be the same, and it very well may be, but I am not as sure as you appear to be, and believe that the template is sufficiently used, and edited by enough different users, to merit a discussion before deletion. --Maxamegalon2000 03:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could do this the easy way: Remove it from every article then nominate it on the grounds that nothing links to it. -- Scorpion 03:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find it distressing that you consider mentioning such an action to be a valid rhetorical strategy. I'm not sure how one could reasonably reply to it. --Maxamegalon2000 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because, I nominated it for speedy deletion on the grounds that I am the page creator. I don't feel like fighting inclusionists, such as yourself, due to my already stressful exam schedule. There is a category, rendering the template useless. So, either the template or the category should go and it makes more sense that the template be deleted. -- Scorpion 03:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion is clearly disputed, not a speedy, feel free to discuss it at WP:TFD --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which looks better, this or something like this? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The second one. Why repeat the names? Jordan (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have to remember that the eventually at least one of the non-returnees will have their own page, so that solution is only a short term one. Bobby Jon and Stephanie are listed twice. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So a few days ago I added orange coloring for contestants that returned to appear on Survior:Micronesia "Fans vs. Favorites". This seemed like something that was logically missing from the Template when I first saw it given that the green coloring was being used to designate contestants who returned for Survior:All Stars. Clearly Scorpion0422 disagrees since he reverted my changes. He didn't however, explain why he disagrees. Please help me understand why returning contestants for Survior:All Stars should be designated with a color while returning contestants for "Fans vs. Favs" should not. --Skotywa (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is something better discussed when the season is complete and the "fans" have pages for themselves, as is surely inevitable. However, there are currently only six or so Faves with articles. In All-Stars, we had 17 contestants with pages already which would have been too huge for the table. We do not have enough FvF contestant articles to warrant colouring. Furthermore, I disagree with the orange you used as it made the names difficult to read. (Did you try bold? Or I suggest another colour. Purple?). We should discuss this nearer the end. Especially seeing that the fans will have no other places to colour in later, as Scorpion pointed out above. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (and edited by him shortly after).Reply[reply]

There are 17 All-stars with pages whereas 7 favorites have pages, and there is a very good chance some of the fans will get pages too. The use of colour coding is already discouraged and I felt using two colours is unnecessary. We should revisit the issue once the season is completed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Trombonator and Scorpion. The fact is that when a few fans get articles (someone already tried with Alexis Jones), your going to have a section there anyways, so why should it be incomplete with the contestants that appeared on the season. All-Stars is different because ALL the survivors were from previous seasons so an "All-Stars" column would be pointless. It's like with Bobby Jon and Stephenie who are listed in both the Palau and Guatemala sections because they were brought back with a cast of new survivors. Regardless, this will be discussed more when the fan articles start coming through, which should be in the coming weeks now ... only if they manage to pass AFD Survivorfan101 (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, season's over now. I googled all the fans who don't have articles... which, funnily enough is the lot of them. None of them are particularly notable outside of the show, so I am wont to color in the favorites on their original seasons. Purple's good for me; I think the orange from before is too light, and the red is red-link-ish. However, if anyone considers doing *something* on the show as being inclusion criteria, and wants to make fan articles we will have to reconsider. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Part of the reason I don't want to do colour coding is because it's usually discouraged. The current all-stars are bolded and coloured, but if we made the favourites coloured there wouldn't be any way to distinguish them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going with that theory, why is All-Stars still coloured then? It wouldn't hurt the table to make another box... although on the flip side then we are unable to see the proportion of returners from each season. This would go for Micronesia as well. Hmm... confusing... Oh, and some people/one editor keeps making it red. Only colour that the faves haven't been made now is blue... actually, that's an idea... :D -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason is because there are non-returners in Micronesia. The template has to be prepared for the hypothetical of one of the "fans" getting their own article.

Micronesia follows the same precedent as Guatemala.

Yeldarb68 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A James Clement article has sprung up literally overnight. I don't pretend to be an expert on the inclusion criteria, so I'll hand judgment over to those who are clearer on the subject. I'll just point out that the editor who singlehandedly wrote the article is a new user, this is his first page start and he has less than 30 edits. Furthermore, there is little to no information that isn't about Survivor (not sure if that's a big point or not). Again, I'll let someone with experience in AfD/Speedy deletion to handle this if necessary. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't help noticing that Kathy is the ONLY All-Star without her own page and thus with her name on thsi template...does anyone else think she merits enough to get her own? Small5th (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, anyone who has appeared in two seasons or more deserve their own. Kathy is strangely the only one to have played twice and not have an article. Kathy should have an article.

Yeldarb68 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia has already deleted Shii-Ann's, Eliza's and James' articles. I have already discussed this with user Scorpion, and he reassured me that they were not randomly targeted, but were deleted out of a wider scheme to delete contestants who have not done anything noteworthy enough other than Survivor. That is, that they would just be the first in a a far-reaching clean-up. So who should we delete next?

I propose we delete Rupert Boneham and Todd Herzog. What have they ever done other than Survivor?

What do you think Scorpion?

Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're more than welcome to nominate any article that you like. However, please do not be disruptive just to prove a point. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am fully aware of wikipedia's rules regarding WP:POINT. That rule is clearly stated and defined.

Now, please explain how one nominates an article for deletion.

Best wishes, Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somehow, the contestants of the Tocantins, Gabon, and Samoa seasons were rotated. Brett Russell H., and Natalie are listed under Gabon, for example. Somewhere in the rearrangement of the template, it must have been shifted. Also, if James is on Survivor for a THIRD time (which I think is crazy but, hey, he was fun to watch so why not?), I think that merits an article. So once this Heroes versus Villains season is over, we should create it.Simple_butpowerful 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe I fixed the swapped cast error. Thanks for noticing. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wouldn't it be cool to have some notation for the winners of each season? Any sort of font change - boldening, italics, underlining...Simple_butpowerful 21:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say listing in order of elimination might be enough. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I would prefer that too, over listing them alphabetically by either first or last name.Simple_butpowerful 19:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Winner first or last?Simple_butpowerful 20:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Winner first would seem to make sense. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've fixed that; now I'm wondering, should we give three spacees to Heroes vs. Villains, since it has seventeen names while All-Stars has just thirteen? I'm not skilled like that but someone else can, if that's a good idea.Simple_butpowerful 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Thanks for sorting them. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, one problem: the people groups on the second-to-last row are a little mixed up (Tocantins people are under China, China's are under Micronesia, etc). Can you fix? Thanks.Simple_butpowerful 01:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was bound to happen. Hopefully that is fixed now. This isn't the first time :) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone ahead and added him to his two seasons, since there is a page for him even if it's being contested for deletion.Simple_butpowerful 15:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remind me again why there's no page for James? He was voted the Sprint Player of the Season - or its equivalent - twice (in a row, at that), wasn't he? And he's played the game three times now, finishing seventh twice; he's easily one of the more notable Survivors.Simple_butpowerful 15:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See here. Of course, things change, and an AFD result is not necessarily forever. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, that's my thought also; his notability has built up over the seasons, so he hasn't been granted an article yet. Maybe it can be built after this season is through; who knows, he might win Sprint Player of the Season again (not likely, of course, since he's up against fellow mass-vote winners Rupert, J.T., and Russell, but still...)Simple_butpowerful 21:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the template is currently very wide, due to the massive number of columns. the minimum width it will resize to is 977px on my browser. I tried to reduce the number of columns, but was reverted twice. Frietjes (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a problem on my screen. On my laptop, iPad, or iPhone. The number of columns has nothing to do with it, the template will always automatically stretch to take up 100% of the screen. Gloss • talk 03:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks bad on my laptop as well. This should be fixed. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm really not seeing the problem but I'll revert myself and later attempt to work out the kinks in that version. Gloss • talk 04:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am hopeful that this is not the new format for the template. also, the inuse tag is being transcluded into all articles transcluding the navbox, which is not a good idea. Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The old format was confusing, had names listed more than once and was different than most templates on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not liking it either. Why fix something that isn't broken? ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again what don't you like about it? The more seasons of survivor there are the bigger the template will be, in the old template there was incorrect information, names that appeared in more than one place without any notice on why, and the layout was confusing. The old layout was broken. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't really like this format. It's very excessive to have about 5-6 wikilinks for each season in the template, next to all the different player's names. Gloss • talk 01:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking then , do we really need this template? Looking at Template:The Amazing Race I do not see a template just for the contestants, there are multiple people with articles who are contestants on the Amazing Race. Also of concern is that these contestants are all from the American version of Survivor, I do not see anyplace to place this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what a deletion discussion is for. In the mean time, it looks like there's a majority in favor of the previous version. Gloss • talk 00:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it seems, even though when I changed the template layout I found things that were not right or things not where they are supposed to be. I think the more seasons that come out as well the larger and more bunched up the temple is going to look. Right now there are no lines to define which seasons are what in the template nor does it say why the contestants are where they are for whatever reason (Not everyone watches survivor). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I know is that this new format is the most ridiculous and unreadable chart I've ever seen. Even as a fan of the show, I find the chart rather difficult to follow with it's numerous blue links and overall messy organization. In particular, the user who changed it in the first place is a possible sockpuppet, so his suggestions should likely be disregarded for now. Cheers! 183.219.58.106 (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP has been blocked as a sock of User:61.135.177.185 - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree old layout is not perfect but this new change seems a bit radical. Too many links listed more than once. My suggestion is make all the current people's names the same each time they are listed and just leave it at that. And add some sort of spacing between seasons. l'aquatique[talk] 08:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Gloss • talk 22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay is there a way to cute down on the links then? Contestants that have been on multiple seasons for example, is there a reason why we need to list what seasons they were in or cant the reader follow the link for themselves? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Me and a friend are not liking this layout either. I'm ready for it to go back to the way it was :-( 210.253.106.155 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you explain what you don't like about the template? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted the change, again the problems I have brought forward still have not been addressed. I have removed the over-linking issue as pointed out by Gloss minus the ones for people who have only appeared in one season, another editor User:Frietjes has fixed the viewing issue. As I said before the other template had issues such as names appearing in random places, doubled/tripled names in places (And you point out overlinking?), names where they were not supposed to be. The layout also made the template look huge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really wish this did not have to come down to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. I have stated my points the only responses I have seen so far are "Not liking it either. Why fix something that isn't broken?". There have been responses by Gloss and l'aquatique so that makes two editors that have left feedback something can be done with from, when the responses go unanswered though how do you expect this discussion to move on? So far I have been reverted by a series of sock accounts as well along with edits to Gloss's talkpage over this. Can we at least come to some kind of middle ground then if anything to make both sides happy? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not a fan either, because it's just so hard to read this way :( I always thought the old one was good, but I would support a new and improved format if we could just come up with something a little more readable than the current one. I'm open to more suggestions if you'd like to discuss :) King Nebuchadnezzar II (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock accountReply[reply]

The ((Navbox with columns)) version was/is pretty bad. I am beginning to wonder why we even need this navbox at all. There is already a category, and a great list article. The navbox seems to be completely unnecessary. But, if we need to have a navbox, I would say a simple list of contestants is the best option. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Plastikspork: I would be in support of a TFD here, half of me wants to improve the template while the other half is saying the same thing, why do we need this? We already have a category and a list of contestants this seems to be redundant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes PLEASE fix this horrible new format. I'd agree the box we probably dont really need but just in case, it needs to be fixed ASAP. JenniferXYZ (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Another now blocked sock account. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

we could send it to TfD, but I fear the socks will come out in droves. Frietjes (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would not effect the outcome of the TfD. I feel that this template is overlinking as there is already a link to List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants on Template:Survivor, the other thing of concern is, what makes a survivor contestant notable enough to be included on this survivor contestant template? As a fan of the show I can say I am happy to see that contestants get their own template but feel more and more that there are too many issues against keeping it. before I make a TfC I would like to ask those who might favor keeping this, how is it useful? I have already provided examples on how this template is not useful that include WP:POV and Redundancy to the contestant list and category. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I too would like to return to the previous format, because this one is an overkill with all the duplicate links. It's hard to read too. I sure hope some sort of agreement can be reached soon. 187BereniceG (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock account. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The old template had some issues, but nowhere near as many as this one. I think the old problems can be easily solved with minor alterations, rather than such a drastic change. Any suggestions? SouthParkfan19 (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock account. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be great if we could add some color or some lines to define the borders within the template, anyone have any ideas? The groups are sorted I am trying to figure out ways to make the names feel not as bunched up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new flat (non-column format) is an improvement, in that it is more compact, and has less spurious white space. the problem with the column format is that it looks horrible on narrow displays, which cannot support so many columns. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There should be last names attached to the first names. Gloss • talk 20:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is more than one of the same name then it has an initial at the end to differ the two but can add last names if you feel it would look nicer, I just worry about clutter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made an edit to list the names chronologically, but was reverted. I think it is logical because the winners are listed like that too. It makes sense to see the newer players at the end of the list. In my opinion alphabetical list is not as useful because if someone wants to find a specific name they can simply ctrl-f it, or look at the linked full list. Want to know what others think. Make91 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or if someone wants to they can click on "Other contestants" which leads to List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants. That list breaks down every contestant that has ever been on survivor by season, and the amount of times they played the game. The template just lists notable contestants so it would make better sense to place them in ABC order there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just think there should be consistency here. All names should be listed alphabetically or chronologically. When I first saw this template I assumed they were all chronogically ordered because the winners were. So right now it may be a little confusing. Make91 (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on a discussion in AfD, I feel that the benefit of the doubt should be given to contestants popular in Survivor fandom who won a season, and want to craft a consensus AfD based on that proposal.

Overall, I tend to agree that Survivor contestants are not notable, with three main exceptions:

• Some contestants from the first two seasons of Survivor achieved national notability at that time.
• Receiving a million dollars for playing a lead role on a 13-week TV show gives a presumption of (but does not prove) notability.
• Active figures in the entertainment industry (e.g., people with IMDB credits in the past 2 years) should be considered based on their career in the entertainment industry, and Survivor is a notable single appearance in that regard.

I'm currently editing the below lists: Power~enwiki (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Single Season, propose removal

• Ashley Underwood - also Miss Maine USA but no other notability
• Angelia Layton - also Miss Utah USA but no other notability
• Kelly Bruno - notable for completing the Ironman Triathlon as an amputee
• Julie Berry - notable for briefly dating the show's host, Jeff Probst
• Joe Del Campo - a military career, but no notable achievements in that career
• Jennifer Lyon - notable as the first person appearing on Survivor to have died.
• Janu Tornell - also Miss Nevada USA but notable only for resigning from the show.
• Elyse Umemoto - also third place at Miss America 2008.

Multi Season, propose notable through Survivor appearance

As far as multi-appearance candidates who I feel *are* notable as a result of Survivor:

• Rudy Boesch and Sue Hawk were nationally notable figures during the first season of Survivor. (I'd note that Colleen Haskell also fits under this)
• Rupert Boneham also achieved notability; his failed run for Governor of Indiana does not give notability as per site rules, but winning 85% of an officially-sponsored, $1 million fan vote for favorite contestant does.
• Jeff Varner and Michael Skupin continue to generate (mostly negative) press coverage of themselves, in a way that suggests they are notable.
• Colby Donaldson is notable as an entertainment figure for hosting Top Shot.
• Rob Cesternino operates a long-running website on Survivor that has value as a news reference, and serves as a demonstration of his notability in that community.

Several contestants here (Brad Culpepper) are notable for other reasons.

Multi Season, propose removal

• Amanda Kimmel who was Miss Montana USA
• Russell Hantz
• Stephenie LaGrossa
• Bobby Jon Drinkard
• Ozzy Lusth
• Phillip Sheppard
• Yau-Man Chan
• Ami Cusack
• Caleb Reynolds - who has appeared on both Survivor and Big Brother, but won neither.

I would experiment with a few AfDs first before going with a mass removal, each article is a different case here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Winners

Richard Hatch and Rob Mariano are notable by WP:GNG.

Appeared on the show more than once, therefore notable (in my opinion) by WP:ENT: Tina Wesson, Ethan Zohn, Jenna Morasca, Sandra Diaz-Twine, Amber Brkich, Aras Baskauskas, Parvati Shallow, J. T. Thomas (Survivor contestant), John Cochran, Tyson Apostol, Tony Vlachos, Jeremy Collins

Yul Kwon would certainly be contested in an AfD. The Natalie and Nadiya Anderson article is poorly constructed right now and I don't want to touch it at all.

Others

Hi Power~enwiki - You might want to also consider Adam Klein, which is a newly created article on the NPP list. For my part I have no issue with those you've suggested for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]