Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.P. Calderon (2nd nomination)

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. -Doc^g 10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J.P. Calderon

J.P. Calderon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is the second afd for this article. I believe it should be deleted because the person is not notable and for the following reasons:

1. It fails several parts of WP:BIO:
   1. Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (e.g., - Hollywood Walk of Fame) - Nope
   2. The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person - All of the interviews were mandatory Survivor interviews conducted because of his Survivor involvement, not because of his self notability
   3. Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
      1. Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers. - The only articles cited are mandatory interviews that come automatically after elimination. Meaning that none of the interviews were conducted because of his notability. And, the Calgary Sun is hardly a national newspaper.
      2. A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following - No indication of that
      3. An independent biography - Not much of a biography
      4. Name recognition - They didn't even tell his last name on Survivor
      5. Commercial endorsements - None indicated
   4. He fails of the criteria listed there, as well, will anyone really find such a page necessary in 100 years. A google search yielded 20,200 results, but compare this with Sekou Brunch (20,700 results) and Cecilia Mansilla (32,100) who were both voted out before J.P. and compare this with the people from CI that do have pages: Jonathan Penner (73,500) , Ozzy Lusth (79,000), Becky Lee (54,500) and Yul Kwon (105,000), so how does that make him a stand out?
2. Precedent has already been set that merely being in Survivor is not enough for a page. See the afds for Candice Woodcock, Keith Famie and Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien
3. I looked at that Volleyball article, and very few of them have pages, not even the two players who the article claims were the top ranked in 2005. Precedent has already been established for Survivor articles, and if not even the top ranked AVP players have pages, then the main reason for his page is JDMA, which he hasn't done anything of note in, and by the way, none of the contestants from that article have individual pages, not even JDs page is linked from there.
4. Most of the articles cited are merely standard interviews that every ex Survivor gives once being voted , meaning that every single Survivor contestant has similar pages, and yet these were admissable in previous afds.

• Delete -- Scorpion 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-Per Scorpion. I tried to do the same thing when trying to delete about 20 contestants here. And amazing nomination Scorpion. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Close as Out of process. The previous AfD was closed a few minutes ago, at 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC) --Eastmain 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: So? If its closed, then I'll just wait a week or a month and try again. The amount of time betweed afds has nothing to do with th articles notability. -- Scorpion 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The nominator misunderstands "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". This excludes autobiographical pages and press releases. It does not exclude interviews that are a result of someone participating in a contest or winning a lottery. If the person passes this criterion, then he is notable, even if he fails other tests. --Eastmain 21:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't misunderstand at all. I say its admissable because previously deleted Survivor contestants had similar interviews linked from their pages. -- Scorpion 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep and speediest possible close - as noted, this article survived an AfD that closed earlier today. It is an abuse of process and bad faith to renominate the article the same day that its previous AfD closed. Otto4711 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Per the article's history, the previous AfD closed January 30 at 19:59 and the article was re-nominated just 37 minutes later. Otto4711 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Quit trying to find an easy way out. The administrator who closed the last debate said it was no consensus and another afd could be started as soon as I wanted. -- Scorpion 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The admin responded to the message you left on his talk page eleven minutes after the AfD closed by saying "Sure, you can technically re-nominate whenever you want, but it's best to present new evidence/arguments if you nominate again immedietly, not just "go for round two" of AfD and rehash the old discussion. Most people would suggest waiting at least a month for re-nominating if there's no compelling new evidence to present." (emphasis added). Your new nomination is largely a copy and paste from the previous AfD, not new evidence, compelling or otherwise.
• The admin also directed you to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which says in relevant part "By long tradition, the consensus opinion of the community about an article's disposition is held virtually sacrosanct, and may not be overturned or disregarded lightly. Sometimes, however, users disagree with the consensus opinion arrived at in the AFD quite strongly. What can you do if you disagree with the consensus opinion? First, it is a good idea to try to understand why the community made its decision. You may find that its reasoning was sensible. However, if you remain unsatisfied with the consensus decision, there are a few options open to you.
• "If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AFD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections; if it isn't, you can renominate it for deletion. If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted." Rather than wait to see if the article could be improved to answer your objections, you re-nominated the article just 37 minutes after the first AfD closed.
• Your conduct regarding this article has been questionable from the start. You redirected it twice to Survivor: Cook Islands. You attempted to orphan it by repeatedly removing the link to it from both that article and Template:Survivor contestants, including removing it from the template once under the subterfuge of performing other cosmetic maintenance. For whatever reason, you do not have any critical distance from this article. I have asked you repeatedly to take a step back from it. I will ask you to do so again and request that this AfD be closed. I imagine that you will fell compelled to respond to this message by arguing or pointing out some of my actions regarding this article. Do so if you must but I still encourage you to take a step back. Otto4711 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Little of this has anything to do with this afd and it's all just pointless mudslinging. -- Scorpion 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Seems to me it is showing that this is a bad faith nom, and in conjuction with some of your responces here border on being uncivil. EnsRedShirt 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Then report me to an admin, because this is about discussing the notability of this article, not judging whether or not I'm being uncivil, or nominating in bad faith. -- Scorpion 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your conduct regarding this article from the time it was written is very relevant to this nomination. The actual response in context of the administrator you asked about re-nominating this article, whose response you then point to as justification for your campaign, is very relevant to this nomination. Your failure to take that advice to heart by copying and pasting the argument that couldn't win you a deletion the last time without offering any new or compelling evidence in support of the nomination is very relevant to this nomination. Your apparent refusal to consider Wikipedia:Guide to deletion is very relevant to this nomination. Otto4711 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can't you defend the article without attacking me? As that one administrator told you: focus on the editing, not the editor. Nothing I did is against the rules, so stop bringing it up as if it is. -- Scorpion 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have questioned your conduct. If you choose to take questioning your conduct as an attack on you personally, that's your unfortunate choice. I have already defended this article repeatedly at the previous AfD. This second nomination has nothing to do with the article itself and everything to do with the motivation of the person who nominated it. You have displayed a strong bias against this article since it was created. This nomination is nothing but a continuation of your attempt to enforce your bias. You may very well be acting within the letter of the rules but your taking refuge within the letter doesn't change the fact that you're acting outside their spirit. Otto4711 12:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Nominator is incorrectly assuming that the published interviews somehow "don't count" toward establishing notability. Subject passes that part of the notability guidelines. Dugwiki 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, note Scorpion's seeming bad faith in this nomination, per some of his comments above regarding this and the previous afd discussion which ended less than a day ago. Dugwiki 22:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My good or bad faith is not in question here, this article is. As well, the Calgary Sun is hardly a national newspaper. -- Scorpion 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your faith is in question here, as indicated by my questioning it and Otto's comment above. So yes, we're questioning whether you are in fact simply biased against the article because you didn't receive the consensus you wanted this week.

One more thing - the other afds mentioned regarding other contestents seem to indicate they had a lack of published references. This article, though, has published references, so does not suffer that problem. Dugwiki 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers." The Calgary Sun is not a national publication. -- Scorpion 22:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" - He has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published interviews. Dugwiki 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that the Calgary Sun is not national. -- Scorpion 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Which isn't relevant, one way or another, since he meets criteria 2 of the notability guideline (which makes no mention of "national publications"). You're saying he fails point 3, but I'm saying he passes point 2. Dugwiki 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then point 2 and point 3 contradict eachother. -- Scorpion 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• An article does not have to meet every point to be notable. If it meets one of the points, it is notable. Otto4711 02:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Source Obviously there are many many many problems with this nomination not the least of which is the twisting of the spirit of the AfD rules, and the letter of WP:BIO I quote firectly from BIO: This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. I could really care less that this person is notable, but the fact is he certainly seems to be appearing on not just one but two TV shows and appearing on the cover of a nationally published magazine. I agree with others saying that he should not be included just because he was on Survivor, but it seems to me his collection of work merit mention, at least at this time, I say lets revisit this in 6 months to a year to see if this is still the case. EnsRedShirt 01:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and Close To re-nominate an article after this short a time is absurd, and turns AfD into a war of attrition. Maxamegalon2000 06:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain I still don't believe that this article is appropriate for Wikipedia, however it's too soon after the last AfD to relist it without any substantial new evidence. --Maelwys 13:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Mostly for Deletion There's a potential dangerous step if the article, as is, is allowed to stay - as with a small bit of effort, I could add similar pages (with a short bio and wikilinks) for every single past Survivor contestant and other reality TV show contestants from at least 5 other shows, and I'm sure others could add more. I'm sure WP doesn't want this type of article creep, and even if those that have been editing this for a while don't add them, the existence of the J.P. page will likely embolden newer users to create pages for all the other contestants. --Masem 14:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Survivor contestent articles should be handled consistently. If other contestents have similar references to this one, they should be treated the same way. Unreferenced articles should be deleted. I don't have a problem, though, with articles that are otherwise referenced by multiple published articles about the subject being kept. I've never watched Survivor, personally, but if that stance means more Survivor contestents have articles, then more power to them. Dugwiki 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, the only Survivor contestants that get a lot of post-show recognition (and thus pages with a lot of info) are those that made it to the final 4, and specifically those that also appeared in All-Stars (not mutually exclusive sets). So about 25% of the contestants have pages. This means about 150 more paged will be made, with rather simple statements like "John Q Smith was a contestant on Survivor Alaska. He is from Anytown, USA, and is a part time editor" with otherwise minimal backup. This makes the information pretty much duplicate what is already on the CBS website and fan sites for these contestants. --Masem 00:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To quickly reply, 1) this particular article does not simply say "he was a contestent on Survivor from Anytown USA". It's quite a bit lengthier than that. If a different article about a Survivor contestent appears that is little more than a one or two sentence stub, then that can obviously be safely deleted. That's not the case for this afd though. 2) I don't really see a problem with duplicating information that also happens to appear on another website. In fact, since Wikipedia isn't a primary source, all the material in Wikipedia has already supposedly been published before and is available elsewhere. Thus duplication with a fan site isn't a problem, and in fact would be the norm for all articles about anything in pop culture. Dugwiki 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the JP article, in of itself, isn't bad and if it weren't for being a Survivor contestant (like 200+ other people) I'd not have the issue; it's just, again, if a new user that doesn't see this discussion but sees that JP (a early outted player with a few wikifiable and links that could be added), they may try to make similar pages for any other Survivor contestant with even less notability. As a counter-/co-example, Bobby Jon Drinkard is article for another Survivor contestant. This article has no biographical info, and mearly is a restating of the information of the main Survivor season articles he was in. I'd strongly suggest that be up for deletion. Then there's Gregg Carey, where the bulk of the article is based on Survivor season info, and has a tiny tiny bio line as well. That's the murky water I'm concerned about: is that page notable or not? --Masem 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If, as you say, you don't consider this article to be too bad and wouldn't have an issue aside from the fact that he was a Survivor contestent, then this article should be kept. If someone else write another article about a different contestent, and that article has no biographical info or lacks references, etc, then that article should be deleted. We have to consider the articles individually in terms of their published references and whether or not the article is simply a stub with little to no information. Dugwiki 19:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Just a note for those interested, this seems to be the exact same debate that's going on right now over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert Day. Basically it's an argument as to whether or not having sources automatically makes something/somebody notable enough to warrant an article. The same as how there are dozens of news articles this week about "Stephen Colbert Day" and some people there don't believe that it makes the "holiday" (celebrated only in one small town of Ontario) notable enough for an encyclopedia, people here don't believe that having a few interviews published about you in relation to a reality TV series doesn't make you notable enough for the encyclopedia. Anyway, just an interesting parallel I noticed, it'll also be interesting to see if both AfDs go the same way or not. --Maelwys 17:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mael, I don't think both have to go the same way as I agree Stephen Colbert Day is about as notable as Bradmas, but I don't think that sources making something notable is at issue here as much as one persons vendetta versus a certain article, and how many people must think of an article notable before it is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the pedia. This person is obviously notable to a certain segment of the population even if he is not notable to you me or scorpion. Why is our non notability of him a reason to delete the article? There are 1.6 million + articles on the pedia now I doubt that I will ever see most of them, does that mean they should be deleted because they are not notable to everyone?? Of course not. EnsRedShirt 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're going by recognition, then I'd guess that the millions of people who've watched the Colbert Report in the past week or two would say Stephen Colbert Day is a bit more recognizable than the dozens of people who've heard of Bradmas. ;-) And on the same grounds, I'd bet that a lot more people watch Colbert Report and remember the discussions about SCD than there are that watched Survivor and remember some guy that was only on the show for a couple weeks, didn't do anything apparantly notable or memorable, and then left to go join another reality show with a much smaller fan base. But from what I saw on this and the last AfD, most people weren't judging based on whether or not they recognized or remembered the guy (since everybody has different experiences, that's hard to judge), but they were instead judging on how many references there were to news articles about him. Now, the SCD article is up for AfD on the opposite grounds, that even though there are a lot of news articles about it, it's not innately notable (which is a similar argument that I'd made on the previous AfD here). And if SCD isn't innately notable (when it was mentioned several times on a highly rated nighttime show), then I have trouble seeing JP as innately notable (when he was only on 3 episodes of a highly rated reality series) as well. Just my thoughts... --Maelwys 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, Mael, I'd probably recommend keeping the SCD article if it is properly referenced and doesn't comfortably fit within the text of Colbert's main article. I have no problem with well referenced articles about subjects that receive coverge from multiple published sources being kept. Dugwiki 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. After reviewing the SCD article, I notice it actually doesn't have good references in the article. So in fact I'd probably recommend only keeping if adequate references could be provided within the article. It needs a good reference clean up to be kept. Dugwiki 18:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• keep. This is exactly the sort of trely irresponsible afd that makes our procedures look absurd. Total waste of human bandwidth. DGG 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is really ridiculous that people are saying keep based soley on my supposed motives and are ignoring the arguments about the article. It's not afds that waste bandwidth, it's replies like that that are wastes of time. -- Scorpion 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I find the nomination of an article for deletion 37 minutes after a previous discussion to be more ridiculous. The arguments about the article have already been heard, and no consensus to delete was reached. Scorpion, is it your intention to continue to nominate the article for deletion until an outcome you consider favorable occurs? I do not intend this as a rhetorical question. --Maxamegalon2000 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? Focus on the article and not the "motives". -- Scorpion 13:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, your motivation in nominating this article immediately after its previous AfD closed matters a great deal to this nomination. Bad faith in the nomination process matters a great deal. The history of the nominator in relation to the nominated article matters a great deal. When a nominator has stated in the course of the nomination that he doesn't care if the nomination is closed because he will simply wait a week or a month and re-nominate, that matters a great deal. Otto4711 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Then report me and quit bringing it up here. -- Scorpion 16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, I will continue to bring up your history with this article here, every time you try to deflect attention from your actions. Otto4711 17:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's funny: People are completely ignoring my and Maelwys' arguments simply because I nominated this article not long after a previous afd which ended in no consensus. And people say this afd is a waste of time because I nominated it so soon, I say it's a waste of time because people are merely voting because of my supposed actions. And of course, the defenders are taking the easy route and saying "he nominated it too soon. The article should stay ONLY because of that" and you keep bringing it up because you CAN'T defend the article and your resorting to attacking my methods. -- Scorpion 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I didn't ignore your arguments. I specifically replied to them above. I also said that, on top of my other reasoning, I suspect you might be taking the afd too personally and therefore the afd nomination itself might be biased or for bad faith motives, or that it might be preventing you from objectively considering comments to the contrary of your opinion. Dugwiki 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't ignore your arguments either, the first time you made them in the AfD that closed 37 minutes before you opened this one. I didn't find them persuasive then and I don't find them persuasive now. Since you offered nothing new in your copy-and-paste re-nomination, and given your history with this article wherein after you were unsuccessful in redirecting it you repeatedly removed links to it from multiple Wikipedia entries in an attempt to isolate it, there is nothing else for me to respond to this second time around except your motivation. Otto4711 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. He only made it to Day 12 and I don't remeber him doing anything notable on the show. --The President of Cool 06:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. He's notable because he also appeared in "The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency" and he is noticeable enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.166.176 (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. He was heavily promoted and featured on 2 episodes of "The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency" and came out of the closet on the show, now featured on Instinct Magazine (this month) - [1] . Tertiary7 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Immediately Why do I get the feeling that "some" of the "people" who are requesting keeping this are really the same person. This is precisely the type of article that is not worthy of the bandwidth it occpies. If we had a page for every contestant of the "Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency" the cost of maintaining Wikipedia would be absurd. He was on Survivor, BIG DEAL. He's a model, BIG DEAL. Buy the magazine, go to a bathroom somewhere, and get over your obsession. Agrippina Minor
• Comment It's also interesting to note that most of the users who make many edits to Survivor related pages are voting delete and most voting keep are JDMA fans... -- Scorpion 14:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, just to seperate myself from the crowd, then, I neither watch Survivor nor have I ever even heard of JDMA. Dugwiki 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I believe this article should be kept. Sure, he was one of many, many people to be on Survivor, and creating an individual page for each of them would be pointless and waste bandwidth. However, He IS notable for more than just being a minor contestant on Survivor. He was/is featured on more than one reality show (and heavily featured on JDMA), both very popular on their respective networks. His appearance in Instinct magazine, in which he and his sexuality and coming out were the cover story, IS reason for inclusion in Wikipedia, under gender/sexuality issues, not to mention that it is a non self-authored print article included in a nationally circulated publication, which supports inclusion as well. I have a feeling that some of those who oppose Calderon's entry in Wikipedia are doing so due to his sexuality, as per the comment above about "Buy the magazine, go to a bathroom somewhere, and get over your obsession". Please, let's be a little more adult about disgreements. Some people may be arguing for his inclusion because they're "fans", but there are very legitimate claims for keeping this article, and personal dislike of Calderon, for whatever reason, should not not enter into the discussion as long as it is a rational one. Bounti76 14:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: As a reader, I came to Wikipedia specifically to look up this article, and get confirmation of the rumors I'd been hearing about Calderon's sexuality. I don't know if that counts here -- I've never participated in an AFD discussion before -- but I think it should be noted that the subject is of interest to at least a small number of Wikipedia readers. Toughpigs 00:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: The effort to delete this page is a ridiculous vendetta from someone over at "Survivorsucks" who thinks it would be funny or would otherwise prop up his/her own ego to delete this page. Absurd and childish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.250.213.134 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2007 (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.