Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Albert
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 was delete. 1ne 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sara Albert
Contested prod, in a manner of speaking: article was deleted on Dec 6, and made a hasty return on Dec 10. ANTM6 contestant who was the 3rd runner-up (ie came 4th). She appears to have scored a few minor gigs since the show. Delete Ohconfucius 08:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, most ghits are references to Top Model Gig, others are nn jobs. SkierRMH,08:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect externally verifiable content to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 6 or a subarticle dealing with a list of contestants (if such a list or article exists... I don;t suggest creating it). Even if there is nothing to merge, a plain redirect to one of the above two targets. Coming 4th on a reality television show does not make encyclopedic notability in my eyes, but there are going to be people looking for her name here. We may as well send them in the right generic direction. If and only if she becomes the next Elle McPherson or Cindy Crawford; undirect and recreate the article with the new, externally verifiable, third-party factchecked sourced info. -- saberwyn 08:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, nn losing reality TV contestant. MER-C 09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, subject meets WP:BIO. Reality contestants are inherently notable, as they're known by millions and get plenty of attention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete couldn't disagree more with the above. Reality contestants are certainly not inherently notable. Passive viewing by lots of people is irrelevant. By that horribly weak standard, anyone who ever showed up on television would be notable, which is a ridiculous assertion. Eusebeus 11:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Reality show viewing is decidedly less passive than other shows. See the criteria for television people at WP:BIO for a better explanation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I simply disagree, and thanks for citing WP:BIO; I would advise the same: Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Reality show contestants don't meet that standard. Eusebeus 13:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- As they're quite notable, reaching the standard that WP:BIO requests for "notable...television personalities," it absolutely qualifies. You can disagree, but you're disagreeing with the guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- No they certainly do not and insisting that your reading is indisputably correct in the face of clear disagreement from a number of editors is silly. Anyway, whatever - we disagree and that's fine. I think others would side with my reading of the BIO guideline though. Eusebeus 14:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I simply disagree, and thanks for citing WP:BIO; I would advise the same: Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Reality show contestants don't meet that standard. Eusebeus 13:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Reality show viewing is decidedly less passive than other shows. See the criteria for television people at WP:BIO for a better explanation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete couldn't disagree more with the above. Reality contestants are certainly not inherently notable. Passive viewing by lots of people is irrelevant. By that horribly weak standard, anyone who ever showed up on television would be notable, which is a ridiculous assertion. Eusebeus 11:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, i think she's sucessful enough to have her own article. And her career is now exploding.--Thelastnigth 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Very weak keep or Redirect. Elcda0 00:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete reality show contestants. 15 minutes of fame doesn't cut it. Redirect to the page on the show. (Radiant) 14:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I cannot agree more with Eusebeus. Most so-called "reality" shows are nothing but prime-time overblown game shows. While the pool of contestants might be smaller, unless the person has won really big or done other things beyond being on the game show, reality show losers are really no more notable than the person who didn't win the Showcase Showdown. The person in this article really hasn't done anything other than lose at a gameshow, and can be mentioned on the main article about the show itself. Agent 86 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to clarify something. I said weak keep because I believe Sara meets the criteria for WP:BIO, but just barely. It says that notability can be established through multiple non-trivial works, which Sara has done. I also believe Sara meets the criteria for "notable actors and personalities in well-known films and televison productions," which says that notability can be established through a large fan base and name recognition (which are both something Sara would meet). The comparison of reality contestants to contestants on Jeopardy! or The Price is Right would seem logical for some reality contestants, but in Sara's case, it's not. Elcda0 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I think it should stay.--Imthso 06:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not notable on her own. Maybe if she won. Just H 20:34, 20 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.
