Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie Ausburn

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maggie Ausburn

Though a winner, Maggie has done nothing else signifigent in her outside life. Drew Daniel, season 5 winner, was also deleted even though he has a small acting career and thus is tchnically more significient. Comedy240 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep obviously. She was on a hit show with around 8 million viewers. She was on for the whole season. TV actors (or characters) with far less viewership/success get articles consistantly. The standard is to keep Big Brother winners, despite the odd inexplicable exception, here and there. This person easily meets the requirements of WP:BIO, regarding independent coverage from multiple sources. Unfortunately, we seem to have a problem where certain genres of entertainment popular amongst Wikipedians (i.e. science fiction) get one easy standard , and genres unpopular in Wikipedia (though hugely popular outside) get a tougher standard. The notion of measuring her "outside life" is silly. We don't require an athlete be known outside sports, an actor outside acting, a politition outside politics. She's tops on a top show. That's enough. --Rob 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: you're certainly right about the tons of sciencefictioncruft all over Wikipedia. Still, at times it is (I presume unintentionally) funny: "Wow, real human beans actually spend their times this stuff?!" -- Hoary 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Winners of major reality shows seem worthy of inclusion, regardless of what one AfD previously said. AfD shies away from precedent and looks at each article's subject's credentials independently. That being said, I would have argued for a keep on Daniel, too. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a reality game show winner is not worthy of an encyclopedia article, in my opinion. Once she has additional accomplishments, like substantial acting credits, she might be notable enough. -- Kjkolb 12:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rob. NawlinWiki 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kjkolb. -- Hoary 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons Rob stated. -- ArglebargleIV 16:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep reality show contestants/winners have posed notability problems for a while, and standards probably are needed. However, Rob's argument, Maggie is sufficienty notable due to winner BB6.-- danntm ^T _C 16:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete. I had contemplated putting an AfD on this one, but the fact that she won half a mill made me reconsider. However, how many lotto winners do we have listed in wiki? Thinking about it a bit more, I'm inclined to go for a delete as she was only part of a successful TV show, and she was not the main winner of the round. Her main field is an ER nurse and she's probably the only one without a huge mortgage. Not known outside BB. Her entry could be merged into BB6, along with the rest of them. Ohconfucius 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you please clarify what you meant by "she was not the main winner of the round"? How are you using hte term "round" here? I think of a "round", as one of multiple parts in a competition (e.g. ten rounds in a boxing match). In Big Brother, a week or broadcast episode could be seen as a "round" (e.g. each opportunity for elimination). She surivived all the weeks/episodes/rounds up until the final one, which she was the winner (2nd prize being a tenth in size). At the end, there were only two contestants, which millions of people tuned to see. She wasn't just another part of the show. As for lotto winners, I suppose if a TV show was dedicated to a loto winner, giving them top prime time coverage, for an entire season of episodes, with millions of people following their every move, with lots of independent coverage, then maybe they should get an article. --Rob 23:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I stand corrected about the "winner" part. I had misread the reference to $1m, thus thinking it was a second prize, although that was probably why I didn't nominate he when I first came across the article. I am sticking by my other comments. Ohconfucius 04:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, or merge and redirect with Big Brother (USA season 6). _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or m/r until she does something notable. Even if she meets WP:BIO, there is very little interesting things to write about. It is all cruft: "she was friends with..."!!! If that's the level of content, then it's not worth having. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Thivierr (Rob), the subject already has done something notable. RFerreira 07:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please being the winner of a major show ie jeapordy or american idol is notable Yuckfoo 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Definatly keep. Without biography pages, the reality show pages would get terribly unorganized and lengthy. As of now she has pleanty of links to websites about her and those would get lost if merged with Big Brother. Also, she has done/said pleanty of controversial things that wouldn't fit into the Big Brother article. She is DEFFINATLY significant enough to have her own article. Irkedpenguin 03:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She's the winner of Big Brother 6. When people are looking through Big Brother pages, they'll probably want to know more about Maggie since she is the winner. A-Supreme 03:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If people want to know more about Maggie, there should at least be something to know that isn't already on the Big Brother article. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 08:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, after all she was the winner of Big Brother. bbx 08:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment/question: And that's all she was, it seems. The article appears to say nothing of interest whatever other than that she won Big Brother. So why keep it? -- Hoary 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Maggie is a well known and notable personality so the deletion vote criteria are not very appropriate. Unitedroad 12:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: I don't understand that at all. What do you mean by "deletion vote criteria"? -- Hoary 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect The article is a complete violation of WP:BIGBRO standards. Besides, a redirect would stop newbies from re-creating the page. Geoking66 00:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rob. Maggie was a winner of a popular television show and meets the standards for notability.--Benjaminx 04:48, 31 August 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.