Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundra Oakley

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. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sundra Oakley

Sundra Oakley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is one of the many Survivor contestant articles where the person really isn't notable. It seems like she's only had a few minor, one episode appearances on shows besides Survivor. Through the many AFD's, it has become clear that, unless the player has won the show, did something really, really notable on the show, or did something notable outside of the show, they really don't deserve an article. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep unless or until she's voted off. Otto4711 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until actual notability is achieved! We don't keep articles on the off-chance that the subject may become notable! Xtifr _tälk 20:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Meh, her appearances make her just minimally notable for as long as she's on the show. Chuck 'er if she loses. Otto4711 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Akihabara 02:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this AfD is premature. Her regular appearances in Survivor: Cook Islands, in addition to the roles in Sex and the City and CSI: Miami put her barely above the notability bar... for now. Whether she stays there will depend on the end of the Survivor season and any roles she has after it, but in the interim, she's a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. B.Wind 01:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You've got this backwards! Her current appearances are giving her some temporary and ephemeral warhols (short-term fame), but do not provide any lasting notability! We don't (generally) create articles about topics that are short-term in-the-news; we wait until it's clear that the topic has lasting notability. Little-white-girl-missing may be covered by all the news channels for a day or two, but that doesn't mean the little white girl deserves a Wikipedia article, even though many people may, briefly, be able to remember her name. Because, chances are, in a couple of weeks or months, nobody will remember the name any more. As for Ms. Oakley, bit TV parts may make this person more notable than your average game show loser, but fall far short of what WP:BIO asks for. The AfD is not premature; the article is premature! Xtifr _tälk 04:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Au contraire - Wikipedia is loaded with such ephemera and should reflect the notability and notariety of the subjects of the articles. Regarding your Little-white-girl-missing may be covered by all the news channels for a day or two, but that doesn't mean the little white girl deserves a Wikipedia article, even though many people may, briefly, be able to remember her name argument: of course the logical reply is that once the person is forgotten, the article covering her can be quickly and easily deleted. Regarding Ms. Oakley, she is a regular on a program seen by over a dozen million people each week (and has been for the last three months), and until that status changes, that's enough to establish notability under WP:BIO. Once she slips from public mind (along with Survivor: Cook Islands), the article can be erased. B.Wind 06:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hold-On. We are now only two days from the finalle, and the declaration of the winner. Both Oscar Lusth and Sundra Oakley are up for AFD, but both are also still in the running. If either of them wins, that will make a major change in their notability status. It does not make much sense to me to close either or both of these AFDs and delete the articles when in only two days there may be a dramatic shift in the notability situation for one of them. If these AFDs are closed and one of them wins, then the article will need to be recreated within days of it's deletion. If the AFDs can be held from closing for just a couple more days, we can avoid that situation and know for sure if one of them is the winner. I'm not arguing that these articles are premature, and if these AFDs were being held a few weeks back I would have said to torch the articles. But at this point, this close to the end, if the AFDs can just stay open for a couple more days.... - TexasAndroid 18:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Relisting to keep this open until the show is over, per TexasAndroid. Sandstein 08:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, I waited. She's gone now, so once again, Delete. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Survivor: Cook Islands. None of the other fourth-place finishers have their own articles, but some (Cirie Fields) have been redirected to the season they were in. 11kowrom 03:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect - Didn't win. No reason for her own article, though redirect to the latest season might be an OK alternative. - TexasAndroid 04:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable contestant with an acting background. --Thankyoubaby 07:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As above. Has appeared in primetime TV programs. Pcpp 12:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Scorpion 19:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As above. Somitho 13:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - not notable enough as a contestant in Survivor. If that combined with the acting career justifies the entry then fine, I'm not convinced it does. The fire making challenge would be fine if covered under the main S:CI page or Becky Lee. I'd probably suggest against a redirect; changing the reference to her on the page on the episode of Sex and the City she appeared in to point to the Cook Islands article would be fine. Jxan3000 13:59, 18 December 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.