Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Franco

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Franco

delete. Not notable designer who was eliminated in an early challenge of Project Runway. No notability beyond Project runway. Alexa rank in the 4.28 millionths for danielfranco.com. "Daniel Franco" + designer scores 18900Ghits of which 638 unique. Of these, the vast majority are for vox.com and blogspot.com. There are 20 incoming links to his site danielfranco.com, including 1 from Project Runway, 3 from search engines, 11 from bunnyshop.com, and the remainder from blogs. Ohconfucius 08:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. (Thanks, Ohconfucius, for the research.) Two years from now, who will care? --Sean Lotz 09:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - being on tv does not make you interesting in itself (and yes, Sean, very succintly put, who will care in a few years?). Lundse 20:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I am curious to know what evidence does Lundse have for his claim that 'being on TV does not make you interesting in itself'? As a matter of sociological fact (as measured by the volume of web blogs and entertainment magazines etc.) it seems that being on television is enough to make almost anyone interesting. 'Interesting' of course cannot mean interesting to just you or just me. But rather it means 'is of interest to large number of people'. It seems abundantly clear that those arguing for Delete rather despise Reality TV and are not themselves interested in it. Good for them. Ohconfucius makes this point expressly clear on his page. He has listed 1 Dislike: Reality TV. And clearly he has taken it upon himself to expunge it as much as possible from Wikipedia. But it also clear that there are plenty of people who tune in weekly to see the exploits of the people on shows like PR. Regardless of what else they accomplish in their lives, for 10 or 12 weeks they become very important to many people. As for whether or not anyone will care in a few years, that is completely beside the point. If the standard is that only the timeless and enduring can be in Wikipedia, I think we would have perhaps 17 articles. Part of the NPOV is that you have a consistent bar for entry. You cannot raise it for projects that you find banal, trivial, or uninteresting and then lower it for those you like. Finally, of course, even if Lundse is accurate in his claim, it does not apply in these cases. If the PR contestants merely appeared on the show and where never discussed or noticed by anyone, then there could be a case for saying that they're appearance simpliciter was not itself interesting. But that is not the case. There is plenty of interest in these people by people interested in PR. That may not be your interest. But that is irrelevant. Jdclevenger 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep reality contestant finalists. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Asking who will care about Y in X number of years is a straw man argument. How important will Angelina Jolie be 1,000 years from now, anyone care to take a guess? The point is we are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia here, and finalists of major shows should be noted. RFerreira 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep there is no reason why wikipedia should not keep a record of this sort of thing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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.