Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Famie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was Multiple (see below). Egad, another messy "multiple nominations" AfD. Once again, I'll do my best:

--Deathphoenix 16:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Famie, Jeff Varner, Rodger Bingham, Greg Buis, Gervase Peterson, Nick Brown (Survivor), Tammy Leitner

Delete - nn survivor contestant pages, also possible Copyvio from some contestants' actual pages. -- Arnzy | Talk 13:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    • On second thoughts, Keep Famie and Varner on the basis of the achievements outside of survivor that Rob has listed. Redirect Leitner untill/unless someone can write a decent article for her, and Delete everyone else. As for the the rest, which are non-notable, some articles has Copyvio in a few articles like this one which is pretty much pasted from their actual official contestant page. -- Arnzy | Talk 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Keith Famie's article may also run under Copyvio as some information seems to be pasted from his offical contestant page. The article may need to be cleaned up if kept. -- Arnzy | Talk 11:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. They don't survive WP:BIO, in my view. PJM 13:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all survivor articles are banned by order of the Tribe --Ruby 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I dunno, I'd personally be mildly inclined to keep winners. I don't see any winners here though, so I guess my point is kinda moot. Delete All. -- Saberwyn 20:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC) [AMENDMENT] If consensus leans in that general direction, I would support redirect without merge as a second option. All of these kind of people were nobodies before the show, and with a very few exceptions (which don't seem to be here), went back to being nobodies as soon as all the media fuss died down. -- Saberwyn 20:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all losers. Actually, let me expand on that: these articles should never have been created in the first place. Reality show contestants are not notable: once the show is over, even the winner usually retreats to the obscurity form which they came. One or two, such as Jade Goody, become famous-for-being-famous, but the vast majority were never heard of before, and are never heard of after. I favour a minimum twelve month embargo on creation of any article on a reality show or contestant - it's not like we need to scoop anybody. Guy 23:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course if you did that, you'ld have to do it for most other types of articles. At which point, you would defeat the entire concept of a wiki, which allows for us to be vastly more up-to-date than most other publications. If we thought it was ok to be a year out-of-date, then we wouldn't have a system of instant publication. --Rob 09:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I don't think so. I don't believe more than a tiny minority of articles document current events. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, a pretty high perecentage of *new* articles, and recent edits to articles in general, relate to new events. That's a reason for having a wiki. If we didn't mind being out-of-date, then it would make far more sense for us to have a system where edits are reviewed, and not published to the public immedidately. Anyhow, an excellent example of us creating articles on the "recently notable" is our coverage of the Olympics. Every single day, many such bio articles are being made and/or substantially updated. I and many, other editors have made bio articles for people who weren't known widely until this month. Do you wish to impose a 12-month freeze on Olympic athletes as well? Perhaps, we shouldn't make bio articles on athletes, until they're proven to be famous long after the games are over? --Rob 10:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Change to keep for Famie, Varner, and Leitner per info on awards etc, delete the rest. As a failed survivor candidade, profoundly non-notable; as a journalist with one Emmy and four Emmy nominations, clearly notable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all these those without clear outside notability; keep and cleanup Tammy Leitner per Colin Kimbrell, no vote on Famie and Vartner. As in previous AfDs, I don't think notability attaches to non-winning contestants on such shows, and I question whether even the winners are notable unless they go on to sell records which are certified gold, sign major-label record contracts, get featured on TV appearances other than promo appearances on the same network, or otherwise generate evidence of meeting WP standards. Barno 19:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (changed vote Barno 14:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC))
    • Today we're talking about Survivor contestants, not Idol contestants. The fact you mentioned gold records, and major labels, suggests you didn't read the articles, and aren't familiar with the show. --Rob 14:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • WP:AGF, WP:NPA. Zero or one person, if I understand correctly, has become famous for being a Survivor winner. Clear outside notability can come from hosting a cable TV program, or recording a chart-topping album, or many other things that have nothing to do with whether their insufficiently-notable reality-show appearance was on Survivor or Pop Idol or some other. Read better before you accuse others of not reading or not understanding. Barno 19:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Look, we both know you mixed up different types of shows (I note, you have no explanation for the double-mention of music-specific criteria). You wrote as if you were in an Idol (or other musical talent) contestant AFD. I don't consider it a personal attack to point out an obvious mix-up, because I welcome it when people point out an obvious mix-up, on my part. --Rob 10:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Famie, Varner, and Leitner for achievements that are independent of Survivor (notable chefship, status as TV anchor, and Emmy Award-winning journalism, respectively); Merge the others to the relevant season of the show. The cases for the first two are borderline, but Leitner should be an absolute slam-dunk thanks the award. Discussions like the ones above make me wonder whether people actually read the articles before voicing their opinions here. -Colin Kimbrell 05:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This will sound strange: the fact each one is different, isn't a great reason to vote differently on each, in this case. It's a good reason to not have an AFD, and to just let individual editors do merge/redirects where appropriate, or improve individual articles where appropriate. I think a case could probably be made for redirecting all the articles, even Leitner in the *short* term. Once, they're in a better state, stand alone articles make sense for some (especially Leitner). Even Leitner is in a terrible undocumented/promo state at the moment. I think a basic issue with AFD, is we're voting based on one static point in time, but which articles should be stand-alone, and which should be merged/redirected is something subject to continuous/dynamic change. --Rob 10:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all per precedent for comparable people on national hit reality shows. Given the poor quality of these articles, a better approach is to put in a redirect for the time being, unless/untill somebody turns into a proper article. There's really no reason for deletion here. I judge contestants on shows, like I would lead actors on a hit drama. The fact they're on a reality show, doesn't make them less notable. This shouldn't be a vote on whether people thing reality shows should be deemed noteworthy. Its whether they've been widely found to be, by others. It seems people are voting to delete because they *wish* these people were not notable. The great advantage of a redirect, is it can be undone easily, when the article is improved (especially with new information about the person). That's a better approach, than people making new articles from scratch (with new AFDs), or going to DRV. This whole thing could be taken care of in five minutes, with one person doing some redirects. That seems much more efficient. --Rob 09:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This one's pretty cut and dry if you ask me. Imagine, if you will, an actor who appears in one season of a hit television show. One of the top rated shows of that season. Would we allow an article on that actor? Of course we would. Well, Survivor is a top-rated show, and although it doesn't use actors, these folks are the "stars" of the show. -- MisterHand 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Reality show contestants aren't actors, but as particpants or contestants that undertake tasks (such as surviving or participating in activities) or answering questions. It's just like a game show, a large majority of those contestants fade back into obscurity once the show is over. Some may go on to be notable after the show such as Ami Cusack or Elizabeth Hasselbeck. But the rest of them do not, thus not meeting WP:BIO standards. -- Arnzy | Talk 15:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • They are not just contestants, they are personalities. Many of these shows, Survivor included, has a full story arc based on the behavior of the contestants between tasks. It's a lot different than appearing on a game show for 30 minutes and answering quiz questions. Many actors fade into obscurity after their show goes off the air as well. Should we delete their articles? Assuming NPOV, we need to treat these contestants the same way we'd treat an actor on a similarly-rated show. -- MisterHand 15:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • About 75% of "celebrities" these days would not be picked out from a line-up containing them and five holes in the ground, but that's an aside. There was a debate on failed political candidates a while back, and many people expressed the view that (a) they weren't notable before; (b) the primary source of information on them during their period in the spotlight is themselves, therefore not neutrsal; (c) after falling back to obscurity no further verifiable data is available. So you have an article which says in essence: "in 2006 X said this about him/herself and did this. X is now believed to be selling insurance in Mudflat, Missouri". Why not just embargo the thing for a year, come back and see if any of them turn out to be Jade Goody (i.e. famous for being famous) and how many were merely data points for the Warhol hypothesis? Trust me, there is no shortage of genuinely encyclopaedic topics requiring work! Just zis Guy you know? 22:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • The "genuinely encyclopedic topics" is a non-argument if you ask me. It's not an either/or proposition. It's not as if the people editing articles about Survivor contestants are taking time that they might otherwise be using to write about Russian literature (or whatever topics you might find "worthy"). Really, this whole thing smacks of elitism to me...people who don't care for unscripted television deleting articles because they aren't personally interesting to them. I don't understand why a different standard is held for actors who appear on scripted series who get similar ratings...many of them are nobodies who become notable because of their appearance on those shows (for instance, Evangeline Lily. -- MisterHand 00:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per MisterHand. --Maxamegalon2000 16:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just for the record, if Leitner is kept, I will work on cleaning up her article to a respectable level of quality. -Colin Kimbrell 00:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You may need to clean up Famie as well, should Famie be kept, seeing parts of the article seem to be Copyvio from his official contestant page. -- Arnzy | Talk 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      • He's in need of cleanup, but I'm afraid I don't know enough about the subject to do a good job of it. -Colin Kimbrell 20:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: I understand the reasons for not wanting a stand-alone article on some of these people, given the poor state of content today. So, I would like to ask the delete voters (as opposed to merge/redirects) why they prefer deletion (with permanent removal of content) over merge/redirect. We'll continue to have content written about all of them in the Survivor/season article, so why not redirect readers to this content? I think the Emmy case highlights the danger of deletion, since we could have lost that information, if there'ld have been a delete (it wasn't in the surivior article, as it wasn't about the show specifically). A redirect doesn't destroy such information, and allows it to be used later in a spun-off article. It's worth noting, that we often do the merge/redirect for failed political candidates. --Rob 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all save for whatever trivial bits might be worth merging into the appropriate Survivor article. This includes Leitner (winning a local Emmy is about as prestigious as winning $20 on a scratch-off lottery ticket), though I'll have no objection to a rewritten-from-scratch article on her if Colin wishes to do so after the current abomination has been deleted. --Aaron 00:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. --Mmeinhart 04:41, 28 February 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.