Talk:J. P. Calderon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class. |
[edit] Very well
Explain to me why this page is notable. Yes, he played volleyball in College. So? Yes, he was on Survivor, but a LOT of more notable players don't have pages. He's a model, so? Being a beginning model, even with a major agency, shouldn't be enough to warrant a page. -- Scorpion 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
WHY? Hasn't this page been deleted yet? Agrippina Minor 1 February 2007
[edit] On notability
The subject of this article meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, having been the subject of multiple non-trivial published articles. Whether there are 100 other more notable Survivor contestants or a billion more notable people on the planet is irrelevant. Notability is not subjective. Either a subject is notable or it isn't and based on guidelines Calderon is notable. If you think there are other Survivor contestants who are also notable then feel free to write articles on them. Otto4711 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it does, because if similar articles have been deemed not notable enough, then it relates to this article. I'm currently getting opinions from other Survivor people, but this page will likely be nominated for deletion since you seem to be unwilling to merge it. I am open minded though and I'll listen to others. -- Scorpion 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- If other Survivor people don't understand notability guidelines, then please refer them to WP:NOTE. If you believe the article should be merged (which is not the same thing as a redirect) then explain what article you suggest it be merged to and why. Otto4711 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion, anybody finishing outside the final 4 at Survivor is not-notable unless they managed to cause a huge impression on people during their time there (and by virtue of only having been there 4 weeks and not doing much noticible, JD definitely doesn't qualify for that). The factoids about his volleyball "career" are completely trivial. And it remains to be seen how much exposure he'll get from the new modelling reality show he's on now. If, for example, he's dropped from it in the next week or two, then he was basically a minor character for a couple episodes and completely non-notable for that either. If he manages to stick around long enough to become a "main character" then perhaps he could be worthy of his own page. But from what I see right now, I'd support an AfD nomination on it. --Maelwys 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, my question again is, have you read WP:NOTE? "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." J.P. Calderon has been such a subject and therefore mets notability guidelines. How well he finished in the game is irrelevant. How long he lasts with the modeling agency is irrelevant. Otto4711 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- As Scorpion said, it's only a guideline. But even if you insist on taking it as law:
- Survivor Profile: Fails "independant" because it has a vested interest or bias (they made money off of him being on their show)
- Model Profile: Fails "independant" because it has a vested interest or bias (they made money off of him being on their show)
- Sun article: Passes
- TV Guide article: Passes
- AVP profile: Fails "non-trivial" because it has very little valid information
- So basically, I count 2 valid references for the purposes of Notability. Also, if you look at WP:BIO you'll find that JP fails any of the suggested criteria there as well. All in all, I believe that he's entirely un-notable at the moment, and that this article should be redirected to Survivor (or simply deleted). --Maelwys 22:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Funny that you would slag me with your snide little "take it as law" comment when you go on to cite WP:BIO. WP:BIO is also a guideline, not a policy. However, WP:BIO states that notability "is the central criterion for inclusion." You have pointed out that within the article currently you believe that for purposes of establishing notability there are two independent non-trivial sources. Two is "multiple" so by your own lights you should be in favor of keeping the article. There has been no policy argument advanced that supports the deletion of this article and one of the two people arguing against it (that'd be you) has conceded that it meets notability guidelines. So why anyone would continue to gripe about the article is a puzzlement. Otto4711 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that was intentional. I was showing that if you want to look that seriously at guidelines, you had to look at all the guidelines. And no, I didn't concede that it meets notability guidelines. I showed that there were only two sources, but I don't believe that those two articles makes it notable. As per WP:NOTE:
- The "multiple" qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability.
- There is no firm line where 1 = non-multiple, but 2 = multiple, or any other point. In my consideration, the two articles aren't notabile enough that those two articles alone make him notable. --Maelwys 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that was intentional. I was showing that if you want to look that seriously at guidelines, you had to look at all the guidelines. And no, I didn't concede that it meets notability guidelines. I showed that there were only two sources, but I don't believe that those two articles makes it notable. As per WP:NOTE:
- Funny that you would slag me with your snide little "take it as law" comment when you go on to cite WP:BIO. WP:BIO is also a guideline, not a policy. However, WP:BIO states that notability "is the central criterion for inclusion." You have pointed out that within the article currently you believe that for purposes of establishing notability there are two independent non-trivial sources. Two is "multiple" so by your own lights you should be in favor of keeping the article. There has been no policy argument advanced that supports the deletion of this article and one of the two people arguing against it (that'd be you) has conceded that it meets notability guidelines. So why anyone would continue to gripe about the article is a puzzlement. Otto4711 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- As Scorpion said, it's only a guideline. But even if you insist on taking it as law:
- You're not my Zen master and I'm not Grasshopper. I don't need your little illustrative patronizing crap. If you feel like this article is such an egregious violation of Wikipedia policy (which, remind me, what policy is it that you're claiming is violated by this article? Oh that's right, none) then feel free to nominate it for deletion. I'm bored with your routine. Otto4711 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what "illustrative patronizing crap" you're referring to, I apologize if I came off harsh or patronizing at any time during our discussion. But since it seems that we're not going to manage to come to any agreement here, I've listed it for AfD as you suggested, you can find it here. --Maelwys 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I was going to wait for some opinions before nominating it, and I was hoping to convince this guy to give up peacefully without turning this into a weeklong headache, but so be it. -- Scorpion 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what "illustrative patronizing crap" you're referring to, I apologize if I came off harsh or patronizing at any time during our discussion. But since it seems that we're not going to manage to come to any agreement here, I've listed it for AfD as you suggested, you can find it here. --Maelwys 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, my question again is, have you read WP:NOTE? "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." J.P. Calderon has been such a subject and therefore mets notability guidelines. How well he finished in the game is irrelevant. How long he lasts with the modeling agency is irrelevant. Otto4711 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's just a guideline, not a policy. -- Scorpion 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- No kidding. What's your policy argument then? "There are 100 other Survivor players who are more notable" sure as sin has no foundation in policy. Otto4711 21:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
DELETE THIS OBSCURE PAGE! Agrippina Minor
[edit] Deletion
I absolutely agree with Agrippina Minor!!! Can someone nominate it for deletion. I honestly tink that it should be deleted not just about his poor performance on Survivor, but also the appropiate content that kids might be watching and reading about him. It's just not right at all. Feel free to address your opinions so that we can ensure a deletion to happen. Willbender 05:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the "We must keep it if it has already survived an afd, so let's ignore all arguments" principal means that Wikipedia is forever doomed to have an article on this obscure nobody. It's a shame. -- Scorpion 05:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- First off read the 3 previous deletion discussions to see that he was found notable outside his Survivor appearance. Also please read WP:NOT#CENSORED as well it basically says that wikipedia is not censored for content. There are far worse pages out there for kids anyway. (Like the Ozzy article about his appearnce on Playboy TV.) Scorpion, No new arguments were brought up in either of the last two AfD's, and quite frankly you seem to be the one ignoring others comments. Just because he is not notable to you or I does not make him non-notable. EnsRedShirt 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the majority of keep votes in the final 2 afds were basically because it had previously survived. And, I cited several guidelines that said he wasn't notable. Plus, he has less google results that 15 other people FROM HIS OWN SEASON, including 2 voted out before him. And most of them didn't appear on 2 different TV shows. -- Scorpion 07:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's because you didn't say anything different, you rehashed the same arguments over and over. You completely ignored the fact that some people, like myself, said that notability could change, but at the moment he was notable. EnsRedShirt 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not so much that the article had previously survived an AfD; it's that the article had survived an AfD less than an hour before its second nomination, and survived two AfDs within a month before its third nomination. There are lengths of time between nominations in which one could more reasonably expect a change in consensus. --Maxamegalon2000 08:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the majority of keep votes in the final 2 afds were basically because it had previously survived. And, I cited several guidelines that said he wasn't notable. Plus, he has less google results that 15 other people FROM HIS OWN SEASON, including 2 voted out before him. And most of them didn't appear on 2 different TV shows. -- Scorpion 07:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
