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. A Traintake the 20:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. WjBscribe 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finishing third in Survivor is notable enough. -- Scorpion 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Third place contestant on one of many, many game shows. No big deal. Agent 86 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Agent 86. mceder (utc) 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article lists a number of interviews and articles about the person in the references section at the end. The minimal criteria for notability is to have multiple independent articles written about the person by reliable publications. So if the references in the article are reliable and independent of the person, then he would be considered notable. If not, he isn't. Since I'm not in a position to verify the references, though, I'll have to defer to other editors to check them out. Note that whether or not he won Survivor or placed third has nothing to do with his potential Wikipedia notability or verifiability for the article. It's solely a question of how much published information there is about him. Dugwiki 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quantity does not mean quality - or notability. We are not blindly bound to a guideline that sets forth criteria that are used as a tool to determine notability. Numerous puff-pieces, human interest stories, or page-fillers do not necessarily make one notable. Notability is more than counting the number of published pieces on any given subject. Agent 86 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you're trying to make a subjective call on what is a "puff piece" versus what is "an article about the person". The fact is that notability is a reflection of whether or not there is sufficient, independent published material about the person to support an article. I'm pretty sure you won't find terms like "puff piece" or "page filler" in policy or guidelines. The only question is whether these articles are 1) non-trivially about the person (ie they don't just mention the person in passing), 2) independent of the subject (ie they're not just written by the subject or their agents), and 3) independent of each other (eg they're not recopied versions of the same wire story). If the references meet those criteria, the person is notable. Dugwiki 18:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add 4) references must be from reliable sources. Blogs and forum posts aren't considered reliable. Dugwiki 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that a puff-piece, etc. (words I never said were expressly incorporated into the guideline) would not constitute "non-trivial" coverage. I refuse to believe that we must be automatons that slavishly adhere to a guideline. If we are, I'm notable for the bowling trophy I won in elementary school. Agent 86 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you wouldn't be notable for winning a bowling trophy unless there were multiple independent articles written about you because of it. So your sarcastic example doesn't apply. Dugwiki 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable reality show loser. Edison 06:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He made it to the final 3, which is pretty good in Survivor. Jordan 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-winner per nom. If a TV producer wants an actor enough, he/she will be prepared to pay for services rendered - not the case here. Maybe WP:BIO guidelines should specifically exclude unpaid appearances on TV as a notability criterion ;-) Ohconfucius 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:BIO (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeopardy is a bad analogy, because most of those contestents don't have multiple, independently written reliable articles published about them. It is not whether or not the person has won or lost the game, it's whether or not the references available rise to the level required to reliably provide a useful article to the readers. Dugwiki 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has links to multiple independent sources that attest to the subject's notability. Otto4711 05:06, 24 February 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.