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 redirect. Though certainly disputed, there is some agreement here (and stronger consensus on other similar articles) that these people are not sufficiently notable to have their own articles. I am redirecting all seven of these articles to Kid Nation for now. The general feeling of this discussion seems to be more targeted towards whether, in general, anybody on this show should have an article, so it's difficult to determine consensus on the articles for Anjay and Laurel, which have claims of notability outside of the show that weren't discussed here in much depth. Whether or not this content is merged to Kid Nation or a future List of Kid Nation participants article is up to editorial discretion. --- RockMFR 02:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: If anyone feels that Laurel or Anjay's articles should be discussed further, feel free to un-redirect them (at which point they will probably be relisted at articles for deletion). --- RockMFR 02:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guylan Qudsieh[edit]

Guylan Qudsieh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A selection of children from Kid Nation who have done nothing notable outside the show itself and not a sign of a secondary source showing notability for any of them Pak21 (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

The above statement shows a clear lack of investigation. The Laurel McGoff article already has more than five references and explicitly states this person's many performances outside the show, a direct contrast to the claim that she (among the others) has "done nothing notable outside the show itself". I don't even understand how this assertion can be made when the article clearly shows the opposite. Some of the others, I can understand as they are minimalist and growing. Still, determining that these are non-notable at this point, especially when there are secondary sources out there (as indicated on multiple of these pages) is research-lazy at best. The pages show references or the locations to find more references. A simple Google search will reveal plenty of references for these participants. VigilancePrime (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Or not, as the case may be. --Pak21 (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? 15 seconds of better search skills (and I do NOT have that great of skills) brought this interview including Mike from a simple Google search. In fact, this (or another) Ellen interview has also been discussed on talk pages. Geez... Round and round we go, or as one might say on a BB forum, "repost!" VigilancePrime (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further (actually, more specific). Laurel has five cited references (and two external links so far) while Anjay has four cited references (and two external links). This is better than a lot of longer articles on Wiki! (I know, Wiki's "Other Stuff Exists" guideline...) The point is, the listing of these two demonstrates that the entire series was indiscriminate. Yes, the Taylor and Zach pages had no references (yet), but these others do and they're here too. How many references are needed before an article, person, or subject is "noteworthy"? (That's a serious question... is there a specific number of references and if so, what is that "magic" number?) [BTW: Mike now has three/three, Taylor four/three, and Zach 0/two; the point is that there are references out there and they are being included as time goes on.] VigilancePrime (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the argument has seemed to be 1. it's "only" a reality show and participants therein, and 2. they only have this one notable event in their entire life, and finally 3. there are no references... Here's the problem: They are inaccurate statements (as described here). Instead of pasting it all here, I linked to it on the Laurel McGoff talk page. It's the best example of these and what they are all designed to be and growing to become. VigilancePrime (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be back on other stuff exists again. Each article must stand and fall on its own merits, not be kept because Survivor: Fiji or whatever else happens to have some articles about its contestants; consensus on Wikipedia is that reality show contestants are not notable enough for their own page based solely on their appearance in the reality show, unless you really claiming that the Washington Scholastic Intercollegiate League (which is being used as a reference on Mike Wyatt Klinge) makes someone notable? --Pak21 (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You're basically nominating Guylan's page for being non notable and then added on the rest of the articles of Kid Nation participants saying basically that if one of them is not notable then the rest of them aren't either. And because you did a google search for Mike's name including his middle name in quotes and didn't find anything unrelated to the show that doesn't mean that there isn't anything out there on him. Obviously he may not always use his middle name. Ospinad (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, from the Other Stuff Exists: "This is an essay. It does not define a policy or guideline; it reflects the opinions of some of its author(s)." In other words, this is how some people think. It is not binding. It is not guideline. It is not policy. It's something that people like you will throw out there when you want to delete an article for personal reasons (seen it many times before). If you want to set a precedant that these are non-notable, why don't you and I go on a deletion spree with that same mentality and remove every article with five or less references, every article about a reality show contestant that only appeared in one show, every article that is less than a full page (how many stubs are on Wiki anyway, I wonder?), and every article remaining that either of us thinks isn't of interest? I think that would be a great idea! Not so much? That's my point. These articles are new, and available for growth, just like hundreds of stubs. A couple of them (Anjay and Laurel and, to a much lesser extent, Mike) are already better-referenced, longer, and more thorough than many Wiki articles. This isn't a matter of "other stuff exists", it's a matter of "this is the precedent that has been set". And it's a good precedent. Let's follow it. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about #4? They could do something completely unrelated to TV either before or after the show that would make them notable. And the fact that these are children is irrelevant. Just look at Dakota Fanning's page. Ospinad (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 4 is part of #1 - things done outside of the scope of the show - but yes, can include events unrelated to the show after the show. However, the events themselves need to be notable - in the case of Laurel, her performance in a local play is not notable - otherwise this would make every local play company's cast notable.
A better question to ask is that is having WP pages on these telling us anything different than their bios on the official KN site at CBS? I mean, you have more specific details, but really, nothing much more beyond what the kid's own bio page provides. Given that this resources already exists, it doesn't seem to make sense to duplicate it on WP. --MASEM 02:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about characters on a show or about the kids who were on it? Honestly, why wouldn't their appearance on this show be enough to prove their notability? The show is watched by 5 million people each week so just going on that they are all pretty famous. Ospinad (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to this simple search, there are appoximately 623 articles that currently use the actual generic ((stub)) template. And this lists about 200 sub stub categories with many many more sub sub stub categories beneath them. That should keep you busy for a loooong time, lol. Ospinad (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take that kindof personally, especially as there is no violation of the guideline. If one is to carefully read the guideline, each of the types specifically and explicitly refers to leaving multiple messages on user talk pages. Show me where I've done that. (Hint: You can't; I pointed the vote out once on the show's main page to insure visibiliy of the issue.) Why is it that deletion "nominations" and some of the most staunch deletionists seemingly fail to even read the articles they are wanting to delete and the policies they cite? I don't get it. Notability has been established over and over. Rationale and precedent has been illustrated over and over. Now there's little more than these empty-threat-like comments like the "Attn: Closing Admin" message above. Come on, everyone... can we be a little more factual and consistent? Fact: These articles meet Wiki notability minimums, as described ad nauseum above. Fact: They are better referenced than the average stub, as Ospinad has pointed out very clearly. Fact: The alleged policy and guideline violations simply have not happened (rather, the actions that are complained about are not violations). I don't know how to break it down any simpler than that. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that "ANYWAY, make sure to go 'vote' for keep" qualifies as canvassing. The message apparently does not have to be on user talk pages. I asked a question about this on the helpdesk ("Canvassing?" under November 21), making sure to point out it was the article's talkpage, not a user talk, and was told by two admins that yes, it was canvassing. That aside, meeting the bare minimum of the notability guidelines generally doesn't cut it; WP:N explicitly says:
...meeting one or more [of the notability requirements] does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
and:

Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

Let's take a look at Laurel McGoff. Reference 1: her page on TV.com. It simply establishes that she appeared on TV; and while that's great, I doubt every single person who has ever appeared on TV has an article here. Reference 2: Her page at Explore Talent. It appears she wrote it herself, so that is not independent of the subject; therefore, it cannot establish notability. Reference 3: She got her name in the local paper. That's a trivial mention; the article isn't even about her, and she is just one name in a long list of people. Reference 4: A list of people who acted in a local play. Again, a trivial mention, not enough to establish notability. Finally, Reference 5: Her page on CBS.com. Not intellectually independent, so it cannot establish notability. Now Mike Wyatt Klinge. The references are two press releases (not considered independent of the subject per WP:N), and TV.com again. This one probably needs its own AfD. Zach Kosnitzky doesn't fare much better with only IMDb (trivial mention; so he appeared on TV, but that doesn't make him notable) and CBS (not independent of the subject). Taylor DuPriest certainly is a beauty queen, but lists of names do not establish notability (they're a trivial mention). Now on to Anjay Ajodha. So he won some spelling bees. That itself does not make him notable, as it does not appear that he participated in any important ones. Finally, the references at Guylan Qudsieh don't establish anything important at all. Basically, this post in a nutshell: None of the refernces provided establish notability; they are either trivial, affiliated with the subject (both are disallowed by WP:N), or are irrelevant. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 03:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My keep vote was not the result of canvassing by VigilancePrime. I had not heard of VigilancePrime until I came to this page. Circumspect (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleVibro, I like your idea a lot. Assuming that someone (admin-able) comes along and does decide to delete the pages, I would think that a Participants page would be a perfect alternative. It meets the need of not lengthening the main KN page while at the same time preserving the information from each of the individual pages. I still support the Keep, but if that is not the ultimate end of this "discussion", then the alternate single Participant page should be the obvious fallback answer. Thanks and Good idea! VigilancePrime (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also would not be against a Participants article if one were to be created. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 03:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so lost on all this now, I'lll just post here at the end... As for the helpdesk discussion, while they may be right in their intent, the actual text reads differently. My thought: Go edit the article to say what you want it to say instead of what it actually says currently. (And I'm not meaning that sarcastically... it doesn't say what you and them claim it means, so it's logical to change the article.) Notability is fickle... here it's not enough, other places it's plenty. I don't get it. There's no argument from me that these people are minimally noteworthy, but that's still enough. Maybe we all should go on that deletion spree (I see plenty of other users who do that... so much negativity!) we discussed earlier. Take out all the minimalist stubs; who needs more information? At this point, I think the Participants option is the most likely, even though - at this writing - the Keeps outnumber the Deletes (4K-2D-2M). Of course, I've seen articles deleted with a 2/3rd keep ratio to deletes before. However it all works out, I'm sure there'll be more info and references to add about these kids as time goes on. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand is why everyone keeps trying to prove these kid's notabilty "beyond their appearance in the show." If you eliminate the one thing that accounts for 99% of their notability then of course they are going to seem unnotable. But why do that? I mean, how notable would George Washington be if you ignore the fact that he was the first president of the United States? Ospinad (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the meaning of notability. The first part of my comment was based on an assumption. Is there an objective definition of notable at least as far as WP is concerned? If there is, then this whole thing might be academic. If not, then this conversation needs to be taken offline until the powers that be provide that definition. I believe that such a philosophical argument can't be solved in a few posts, and this really isn't the place to argue notability, just the format of the information on the participants of KN.DoubleVibro (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a guideline for notability per defined by Wikipedia: "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". None of the articles have "significant coverage" (they have coverage from secondary sources, but they are not significant as they cover primarily local issues). Being in a reality TV show via the show itself is a primary source and not enough for notability. --MASEM 04:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then the argument really revolves around the meanings of "significant coverage" and "reliable secondary sources". There have been comments about the kinds and types of coverage: some concerning material that the participants wrote themselves, some concerning passing references in other sources. IMDB is something I would consider a reliable secondary source, and it has fairly significant coverage (albeit mostly statistical at the moment) of the show. So long as it's quoted as opinion, I would also consider material from the participants themselves as fairly reliable. Even a source making a passing reference can be significant if it is a unique fact. Another argument being made seems to be: "just because a person stars on TV doesn't make him or her notable." If we confine the argument to the definition of notable, then I believe that notability is pretty well established. There are at least two current major sources: imdb.com and cbs.com. In my mind that satisfies the reliable secondary sources requirement. I believe that significant coverage has been provided by both sites even though cbs.com can be considered a more marketing site. Combined with the new material being found, I believe all of the conditions have been satisfied.
What's really being argued here is the spirit of an encyclopedia article, and that is an entirely different argument: Do stars on a TV show merit individual encyclopedia articles? I don't have a good answer to that question, but here's food for thought. Kathryn D. Sullivan has a WP article. She was not the first person in space, not the first person to fly a shuttle mission, and didn't really have anything notable happen to her as an astronaut. Now don't get me wrong, I think anyone that rides a rocket into orbit is deserving of mention, but why should she have an article and these kids not? As far as I know, this is the first time a bunch of kids have been thrown together on the premise that they are forming their own society. My personal view: consolidate the participants into one article for now and later spin off individual articles if warranted. DoubleVibro (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiMySpace... heh...that's cute... :-) VigilancePrime (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all pages, whether that means merging the individuals to a First Season character page and splitting off as warranted (Lauren's is definitely warranted), or just keeping the stubs, because Kid Nation will probably be enough to get any of these kids a start towards anything they set their minds to, especially in show biz (You Can't Do That On Television ring a bell?) and it'd be noteworthy that people thought these kids were noteworthy way back when. Deleting now means the revision history is lost, and in a way, that helps document their notability, especially should they succeed later in life. As for secondary sources, the kids have been on other talk shows and such, which affirms notability. Wikipedians just need to document and verify, and be aware of any paper that ends up being written about the show in child psychology, anthopology, or other areas. I mean, I hate reality TV as a rule, but this is slightly more PBS-style, and may be an Old West version of a Skinner's box. This leads me to think that the full impact of the show will not be known for quite some time, and we should not be so quick to judge and delete. MMetro (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Pak21 (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." We're not adding speculation; we're not adding unverified information. Pak21, Fan24, why is it that every time some point is brought up, your argument changes and, why do your arguments keep revolving around points that do not apply? We have used your own linked guideline and essay pages to refute the very thing you use them to demonstrate. I don't deny that the notability is weak, but the criteria are met and that has been demonstrated. I don't deny that we're speculating about future increased notability, but the articles themselves are not based on speculation. I agree that articles should be referenced, in spite of the hundreds of articles on Wiki that are not, but these ones are referenced to varying degrees. Every time some new argument for deletion is thrown out, the replies from those who have worked on the articles and have referenced them are quick, factual, and logical. Then the attack shifts. If you would like us to go through every single Wiki policy, guideline, and opinion essay and describe why the articles meet with every single word on Wiki, just say so. Please, though, stop the constant "well then, they should be deleted because of this... well, fine, then this is the reason... okay, here's why they should be deleted..." It's getting tiring having to read and explain every policy page that you use as rationale. I simply read the page. It's not difficult and I'm not a rocket scientist. The case for Keep has been made plenty of times with plenty of rationale. VigilancePrime (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[For those keeping score: 5K-2D-3M]

The point of the point/counter-point is that is the information that will be used by the admin that closes the AfD; majority is not the same as consensus and the AfD closer is free to ignore votes that supply no or inappropriate arguments on either side of the discussion. When someone brings up a new point of view to consider, it is not inappropriate to state why it is not important to the subject, as long as the argument is rationale and doesn't fall into arguments to avoid
And save for Laurel, notability has not be meet: again: significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is the notability requirement. IMDB or TV.com listing as a cast member is not "significant coverage" its a statement of fact (technically, they are tertiary sources for the source). I've seen mention of the show but not the children on the show in many sources, so there is a distinct lack of notability demonstrated. Laurel's appearance in a play may be notable, but because its a local production, and we don't list every single local theater production and the cast members in it, that itself is not notable. --MASEM 19:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's also the logic in my argument, though I may not have made it very clear. Yes, these kids have appeared. However, plenty of information about their experiences on the show is available in Kid Nation. There's no point in duplicating this information in individual articles. Is there enough non-Kid Nation notability to warrant these kids having their own article? It does not appear to be so. The references provided in the article cannot establish notability because they are either lists of names (trivial mentions cannot establish notability) or are not independent of the subject (press releases, a bio written by Laurel herself, pages on CBS.com, etc.). Now, Mike appeared on Ellen. That would be enough to establish notability if the interview was not about Kid Nation, which it is not. Again, that is simply a duplicate of information already in Kid Nation. I apologise if my argument was unclear, though it should be cleared up now. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 20:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearer and makes sense. I do not agree that notability outside of the initial notable event is necessarily demanded (as someone else pointed out above, there are many articles and many people who, but for one notable event, would not "qualify"). I see a very unclear standard being set among Wiki, though, as I initially pointed out with Reality show participants having their own pages already and thus these pages are in that same tradition. Yes, there's the opinion essay of Other Stuff Exists, but what we're looking at is the precedant set on Wiki. If we were to put all the information on each kid into the KN article, it would get excessively (and unmanagably) long. A list of participants page would be better, but individual pages for many of them could be warrented. As I've said, their notability is weak, but it is sufficient as I see it and as I see notability applied to articles throughout Wiki. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Kid Nation article has grown to the point where articles need to be spun off. As such, their current collective notability has been determined. Nothing has been added to any individual article that is speculation. Deletion would be WP:CRYSTAL in reverse, speculating that nothing noteworthy will occur from any of them, when they have already achieved a notability comparable to other biographical articles. My vote is still Keep for having already attained notability, but I will support a merge, especially if individual articles can be kept on a case by case basis, and I strongly oppose deletion because I feel that is a WP:ALLORNOTHING. MMetro (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, not everyone in a reality show is inherently notable. For example, someone who gets voted off in the first episode of a not very popular reality show, when they didn't even get that much screen time in that episode to begin with, wouldn't be very notable. But someone who gets lots of screen time and who is in every episode of a very popular reality show would be much more notable. Even if it is determined that none of these people are notable enough for their own article then at the very least we can still keep them but merged them together into a List of Kid Nation participants article. To delete all of them would be an overreaction. Ospinad (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys shouldn't delete the Anjay page. It's the most detailed...the most cited. I think in fact keep all articles. I think some Kid Nation fans are wanting to know more about the kids on the show. Use ImDB for full names, and CBS's site for biographical information.DancingWithTheStarsGuy (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, too!DancingWithTheStarsGuy (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
More