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. - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stallings (model)[edit]

John Stallings (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article on a male model previously nominated for deletion and deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stallings (model). Deletion was challenged at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 23 where the result was relist for further disussion. Please read both discussions before opining. The question appears to be one of sources - which are reliable and are there enough. This is a technical nomination, I have no opinion. GRBerry 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources shown which assert sufficient notability. Realkyhick 01:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No proof of notability. ZBrannigan 01:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' Ghits are low, and it appears that most of the reference and such are related to the show The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency or attempts to sell the show. I don't see where he meets WP:BIO by himself. He might be worth a paragraph on the article The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency and a redirect there. Jeepday 03:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No assertion of notability. --Bryson 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:N. Morenooso 04:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Manhunt (2004 TV series)#John Stallings I have created a section on that page and copied relevant text and links. It is much better to salvage data and improve an existing page rather than just deleting it. If I can get some support I will change to a redirect. --Ng.j 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - WP:BIO states that an entertainer is notable if they are a television personality who has "appeared in well-known films, stage plays, television, and other productions." Stallings has been a featured cast member on Manhunt and has appeared in almost every episode of two seasons of The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency (the highest rated premiere its network has ever had [1]) and the holiday special Christmas with the Dickinsons. WP:NOTE states that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." The sources ( [2] and [3] ) are linked in his article and the only reasons offered for rejecting them was that they were interviews and that one had popups. I would like to see where in WP:RS it states that interviews are not acceptable sources or that popups compromise a source's reliability. The subject passes WP:BIO. The subject passes WP:NOTE. Otto4711 04:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am being bold and redirecting the page to Manhunt (2004 TV series)#John Stallings. Since consensus is to delete, I don't think this will be a problem.--Ng.j 05:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have boldly reverted your redirect. In future I suggest you wait longer than 4 1/2 hours before doing something similar. Otto4711 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was thinking that you would revert it if you had a problem, something that is easier than undeleting an page. Something that should be pointed out though is that you are a significant contributor to the article in question, as well as the pages that link to it. Not implying anything, I just thought it should be noted for consideration.--Ng.j 05:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not implying anything, then why bring it up in big bold letters? If no conclusions are to be drawn from my contributing to the various pages then mentioning it here has no relevance. Nor does my contributing to the articles in question have any bearing on my opinion (put Nathan Fields up for deletion and I'll vote for it) or on the fact that the subject passes both WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Otto4711 05:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have stated the conflict of interest and refrained from voting. --Ng.j 06:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much for not implying anything. My opinion would be the same whether I had ever touched this article or not. Otto4711 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt (2004 TV series)#John Stallings is pretty much the same as John Stallings (model).--Ng.j 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you copied the information over. Which, I suppose, qualifies you as having a conflict of interest. Otto4711 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Losing game show contestant. -- Mikeblas 05:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We have all sorts of articles for "losing game show contestants." His win or loss on Manhunt does not take into account his appearances on the popular JDMA program. Otto4711 05:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per User:Otto4711 --Silas Snider (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In my opinion, this article is far too small to justify keeping it if it barely meets any guidelines or policies on Wikipedia, no matter how ridiculously we stretch them to fit this article in =) ZBrannigan 08:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How exactly is it a ridiculous stretch of guidelines to include articles for people who pass the guidelines? If he doesn't pass BIO and NOTE, explain exactly how he doesn't. Otto4711 12:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- no assertion of notability. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 08:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The assertion of notability lies in his appearances on multiple well-known television series. Otto4711 12:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, can redirect to The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency Chevinki 08:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Ng.j or, if that is not seen as appropriate, Delete StuartDouglas 11:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking independent notability, no prejudice against a redirect. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And you're ignoring the guideline of WP:BIO and the multiple independent sources why exactly? Otto4711 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Jeepday's comment. Definately a redirect, but, contrary to Jeepday's comment, there are a good number of Ghits, abotu 250,000 (if you include the word "model"). See [4]. DTD_(speak)
• Delete per the other deleters. Acalamari 18:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as just not notable enough yet. Judgment call but without a bit more acclaim or exposure I don't think he meets the notability criteria yet. Ronnymexico 20:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP articles need to stand on independent secondary sources. Two interviews ≠ independent secondary sources. ~ trialsanderrors 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails our notability guidlines. James, La gloria è a dio 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Does JDMA play on UK telly? I've never heard of it, nor what I presume is the spin-off, 'Christmas with' etc. Is this a reason to delete? Perhaps a redirect to a more suitable Wikithing would be in order.--dick 22:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No real assertion of notability. Ford MF 07:08, 30 March 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.