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 Keep. I think that, on balance, WP:BLP1E is inapposite to this case because the underlying premise of WP:BLP - avoiding harm to individuals by respecting their privacy - is not implicated here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Donahue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Three years on, it is now evident that this one-time winner of Big Brother squarely fails WP:BLP1E. The subject has not had any achievements since the show. The biography contains a paucity of reliably sourced biographical information, which suggests that her notability is not high. Note also that this article has survived deletion when bundled with Eddie McGee; it has also been tagged merger candidate for over a year. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the appropriate Big Brother article, per WP:BLP1E--Boffob (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- as the winner, I think it is marginally notable enough to maintain the article; also, this really should be looked at from the standpoint that she is one of 10 people who are basically in the same boat -- winners with nothing since. I think a mass nomination of the winners would be the way to go rather then a one-off discussion. As a possible compromise, how about a Winners of Big Brother (US) article, there are 10 of them now.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Once notable, always notable. Notability does not expire. We don't talk much today about people who were members of the New Jersey legislature in 1922, but we recognize them as notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 17:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Winners of Big Brother (US), per jordan's suggestion, the other winner's articles should be AFD'ed if this one succeeds. Some of the winners might merit their own articles independent from the winners list, other not. (And, as per WP:BLP1E compliance, this article is not a biography but just a mention that she won the contest that year and some circumstances around it, so it needs to be merged somewhere). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The winner of each season is notable, and the best justification for that is that it makes sense. I've seen lots of articles get written when its 9th place, or something like that and that clearly doesn't count. . I';m not sure about 2nd and 3rd, but certainly 1st. One achievement at the top level is sufficient for notability. BELPIE applies only when someone is incidentally caught up in something or on the periphery--not the center, not the winner. DGG (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's notable because she was the winner. Big Brother is definitely a notable competition, and was a pioneering series in reality tv. 128.118.242.160 (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She's notable only because she was the winner and for no other reason, hence fails WP:BLP1E. Big Brother is notable but notability is not inherited. McWomble (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nom is exactly right. Why do we bother having BLP1E if editors are blithely indifferent to its application. Eusebeus (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability other than winning the series, hence fails articles about people notable only for one event. McWomble (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Big Brother 3 (U.S.) seems like the most sensible outcome. -Halo (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. On BLP1E, I think there is a distinction as to whether a person actively worked for the event, or passively was affected by the event. In this case, the subject was a fully willing participant in the show, and won it. There is nothing particularly negative in the article either. The celebrity status (this is a major reality show, on a major network, in a major country), as well as Eastmain's argument is my reason for going with keep on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where the heck does WP:BLP1E say that the subject has to be an active participant on the event? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I assumed that was right but apparently not. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as this article is sparse and has had ample opportunity to be improved. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Once notable, always notable, like being a king or queen of Narnia. In this case it might be being a king or queen of a really dumb show but that doesn't matter. BLP1E is made primarily to protect people who have gotten in the news for a single event. Strict application of BLP1E is thus highly unreasonable when the individual has gone to much effort to be the center of attention. Furthermore, there have been followup sources post the original win that give her continuing notability and thus isn't BLP1E anyways. I'd love if we could delete everything related to so called reality-tv but policies, guidelines and common sense don't let us do so. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:00, 19 November 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.