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 redirect to Survivor: Borneo. Redirect seems the best solution. Tone 09:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kenniff[edit]

Sean Kenniff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Survivor was not just a reality show. It was a seminal show watched by millions of Americans. Yes, I did not win. But winning a reality show is hardly "notable." I've done many more notable things with my life, including reporting for CBS news for 9 years (network and TV) and wrote a critically acclaimed book (and authored two others) which was praised by a Nobel Peace Prize winner and a UN Ambassador of Peace. So please delete your assertion for "non-notable" because Survivor was just one facet of an interesting and contributive life. It's insulting. Also invented The Jerk at Work. Many "notable" things. Please do not be biased for whatever reason. I promise to resist this clear unfounded bias in any legal way possible. Thank you. 104.186.77.128 (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Please refrain from the legal threats and sign your posts using the four "~" symbols at the end. We will determine notability based on well-established wiki criteria with no bias. Oaktree b (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately on Wikipedia, there's a Wikipedia:BLP1E rule, so you're permanently defined by Survivor forever. (Say in the news, the way Paul Sorvino obits constantly reference Goodfellas; any article on you will refer to Survivor, as news media consistently refer to someones root notability, but as yours is a reality show, it'll mean on here you will either be deleted or have your article redirected to a "list of contestants" page.), so there's pretty much no way this article will not be deleted. (worth noting that in entertainment this rule only gets applied to fields that women like generally, like reality tv and beauty pageants etc, meanwhile for stuff men like - like sports, they have special guidelines that protect the athletes, where just one pro game is enough, despite every media reporting them in context to their team/league/sport too). So a reality star has special guidelines that specifically sink any of their chances of having a article here. Compare your article to one like Frank Opsal. There's hundreds of undeletable articles like Opsal's. Opsal passes on a special guideline, while a special guideline blocks yours. (in a way for you to understand wiki guidelines). As a reality star (even if you're apart of a genre pioneering cast) - you just got the short end of Wikipedia's stick. It's a big claim to say that Opsal and the hundreds of other minor one line olympics athletes like him are more fundamentally important than say, the cast of a show 50 million people watched or a show in which changed the landscape of tv forever (or other major reality show winners), but that's the result Wikis guidelines enforce and this is why you're article is being deleted - purely because you're a reality star, no special bias against you specifically. 124.150.83.81 (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  PS just hope this is atleast consistent and that than every single article in templates like Template:Survivor (American TV series) contestants, Template:Big Brother in the United States and Template:The Bachelor are deleted, as all of these contestants are notable just for one show (not deleting just major pioneering ones like Jun Song - a major figure in the context of Asian American representation on American TV, but also Dan Gheesling if this kind of purge happens). (but it'll also be deleting the hundreds of hours of editors work because of some rule not consistently applied in other fields like sports and we'll be losing the edit history of some of these articles going back to 2004/2005). 124.150.83.81 (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We could possibly redirect him to Survivor Borneo. Seminal show or not, this doctor isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All of these reality show contestants being targeted right now for deletion should have been redirected from the start (not a fan of losing decades long edit histories); but at the same time - let's be honest here; there's many articles of cast members from seminal narrative based shows like Hugh Reilly from Lassie (1954 TV series) who are only known for one role and will only be brought up in relation to that role. These articles are not generally targeted and will be kept often. Only reality tv and soap opera articles are held to this standard in TV. (which is laughable for soap operas because one long running notable role is the point of a soap opera actors notability). Survivors first and second season were extremely important to the history of American TV (moreso than old shows like Lassie); the only reason these cast members are treated any differently than any other old show is purely because reality television generally has a negative reputation. Obviously under the current wiki rules - this guy does not qualify; but i think it speaks volumes where a show that had a double digit millions average viewers can't have 16 cast members for a article (or winners of shows like Big Brother are now being deleted); but we can have 215 articles in the Category:Shooters at the 1908 Summer Olympics; almost all stubs and which will go unchecked (olympics are seminal, not all of it's athletes) or worse, articles where the persons name isn't even known like H. Duke. Obviously the guidelines are set in stone, but it's a worthwhile question to ask why is there a difference between the guidelines and why reality television is at a specific downside compared to other fields and if it's purely because it's got a negative reputation as a field it's worth examining. Even if these were 16 perma stubs, it's no different to the hundreds of perma stub athletes. Two examples to the reality show contestant fallacy is that Jim Verraros is notable because he passes a music guideline for charting (as a minor cast member of an extremely popular reality shows first season and would never get any coverage now for anything other than the show) or that Crystal Cox would be one of the only kept Survivor contestants for passing the athlete guideline, despite winning a team medal and being stripped of her medal and likely to get very minor coverage outside of the show. All of this amounts to nothing as clearly it's unlikely important guidelines will change, but the least we can do is ponder why it's happening and it is a shame people have clearly put many hours into these contestants articles and a shame it has to be deleted on a technicality when other technicality's give rise to many examples of thousands of perma stubs. If the history of entertainment is written in 50 years, im more confident of reality television being covered in-depth than 1920s olympic shooting or olympic tug of war athletes and i do think it's a shame that we don't really do it like that here. (and if we go by reader interest after 22 years this "minor" ranked cast member gets 115,121 pageviews still [1], meanwhile olympic gold medalist H. Duke gets 969 pageviews in 7 years [2]). It's unfortunate that 100k people have to be find that information on other websites (like fan wikis) all because of some kind of inane guideline that favours 969 viewers. 124.150.83.81 (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When I looked at Survivor: Borneo I noted that there is a lot of detail and information about the involvement of Kenniff is nicely included there which is how the people generally get covered. Gusfriend (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for this thoughtful and clear description. I appreciate it! My thoughts are posted in another reply below, but wanted to thank you personally for being thorough, and reasonable. Seankenniff (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO as they didn't win and none of the other items appear to meet the level of notability required. Gusfriend (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And by Delete I include a redirect to the survivor season. Gusfriend (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Seankenniff (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see much beyond interviews from Survivor... There are a few articles/interviews in the Orlando Sun-Sentinel that look like fluff (Doctor talks health in your 40s). I think he's just using his "fame" to act as a talking head on health subjects. Nothing sustained since the show ended. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your opinion is noted, but respectfully, I reported for CBS News for 9 years, a major TV news organization. It was hardly "fluff". For one year, I reported for Extra, a nationally syndicated entertainment show. I wrote a column for the Miami Herald for a few years (they were partnered with CBS). At the time, the Miami Herald was a large circulation newspaper. I wrote two books, one of which got a lot of critical acclaim including praise from Nobel Peace Prize Winner, the late Desmond Tutu--who helped bring down the Apartheid system in South Africa. Super proud of that. This book was also published oddly in Korean. And I have many more cool things planned in the years ahead.

  Thank you all for the explanations and opinions. Special thanks for the lengthy explanation of the lopsided Wikipedia rules above.

  Truthfully, everything is a lot more clear to me during this deletion experience. I'm not even sure having a presence on Wikipedia is a desirable thing. That might sound like sour grapes, or just resignation--both are probably true to some extent. But I'm a man who believes that God knows what he does. My absence from Wikipedia will be a good thing for me in the end. I'm sure of that. This was never a vanity page, and wasn't even flattering to me. Now when people Google me, they'll get my more important work as a neurologist. Which includes the description a new neurological condition related to Covid-19, which we presented at the American Academy of Neurology in April,2021 (CADMAD syndrome). Describing a condition is a very difficult and rare thing. Most doctors never get the opportunity. And we were selected to present this research at the most prestigious annual gathering of neurologists in the world.

  I'm sorry Wikipedia tasks its editors with deleting personal pages (I'd call it "unpersoning", just because I know my Orwell). That's not to say my deletion is politically motivated, because I have no firm political opinions. But I couldn't do this deletion thing, and frankly, I wouldn't do it. If it doesn't feel right, it probably isn't right.

  Thanks again

  Sean Seankenniff (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We do this purely as a hobby, without volunteers this thing called wiki falls apart. Oaktree b (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Being a reporter for CBS news isn't in itself notable, many hundreds of others do the same. This is SNOW at this point. A rather long missive from an individual that might or might not be the subject of the article in question. Still very minimal sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Let it snow. Like I said, do whatever you want to do. Everything I've done, everywhere I have worked, is easily verifiable. And since I did not write a single word on my Wikipedia page, and do not edit or contribute to Wiki (or propose articles for deletion), I certainly should not be tasked with sourcing it. I lived it. I know what I've accomplished, and a lot of it is frankly notable. I'm content with that, whether the rules of Wikipedia find me "notable" or not. It really does not matter. I get it now. I'm not sure why the wiki team here has such animus. It's palpable. I hold no such disregard for any person, or their opinions. Appreciate your team's input. Thank you for reading mine. And I do like Wikipedia. With this NOTABLE exception, I find it very useful. Have a great life. Seankenniff (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks independent, in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:48, 6 August 2022 (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.