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 KEEP. -Docg 10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Calderon[edit]

J.P. Calderon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is the second afd for this article. I believe it should be deleted because the person is not notable and for the following reasons:

  1. It fails several parts of WP:BIO:
    1. Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (e.g., - Hollywood Walk of Fame) - Nope
    2. The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person - All of the interviews were mandatory Survivor interviews conducted because of his Survivor involvement, not because of his self notability
    3. Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
      1. Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers. - The only articles cited are mandatory interviews that come automatically after elimination. Meaning that none of the interviews were conducted because of his notability. And, the Calgary Sun is hardly a national newspaper.
      2. A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following - No indication of that
      3. An independent biography - Not much of a biography
      4. Name recognition - They didn't even tell his last name on Survivor
      5. Commercial endorsements - None indicated
    4. He fails of the criteria listed there, as well, will anyone really find such a page necessary in 100 years. A google search yielded 20,200 results, but compare this with Sekou Brunch (20,700 results) and Cecilia Mansilla (32,100) who were both voted out before J.P. and compare this with the people from CI that do have pages: Jonathan Penner (73,500) , Ozzy Lusth (79,000), Becky Lee (54,500) and Yul Kwon (105,000), so how does that make him a stand out?
  2. Precedent has already been set that merely being in Survivor is not enough for a page. See the afds for Candice Woodcock, Keith Famie and Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien
  3. I looked at that Volleyball article, and very few of them have pages, not even the two players who the article claims were the top ranked in 2005. Precedent has already been established for Survivor articles, and if not even the top ranked AVP players have pages, then the main reason for his page is JDMA, which he hasn't done anything of note in, and by the way, none of the contestants from that article have individual pages, not even JDs page is linked from there.
  4. Most of the articles cited are merely standard interviews that every ex Survivor gives once being voted , meaning that every single Survivor contestant has similar pages, and yet these were admissable in previous afds.
  • The admin responded to the message you left on his talk page eleven minutes after the AfD closed by saying "Sure, you can technically re-nominate whenever you want, but it's best to present new evidence/arguments if you nominate again immedietly, not just "go for round two" of AfD and rehash the old discussion. Most people would suggest waiting at least a month for re-nominating if there's no compelling new evidence to present." (emphasis added). Your new nomination is largely a copy and paste from the previous AfD, not new evidence, compelling or otherwise.
  • The admin also directed you to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which says in relevant part "By long tradition, the consensus opinion of the community about an article's disposition is held virtually sacrosanct, and may not be overturned or disregarded lightly. Sometimes, however, users disagree with the consensus opinion arrived at in the AFD quite strongly. What can you do if you disagree with the consensus opinion? First, it is a good idea to try to understand why the community made its decision. You may find that its reasoning was sensible. However, if you remain unsatisfied with the consensus decision, there are a few options open to you.
  • "If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AFD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections; if it isn't, you can renominate it for deletion. If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted." Rather than wait to see if the article could be improved to answer your objections, you re-nominated the article just 37 minutes after the first AfD closed.
  • Your conduct regarding this article has been questionable from the start. You redirected it twice to Survivor: Cook Islands. You attempted to orphan it by repeatedly removing the link to it from both that article and Template:Survivor contestants, including removing it from the template once under the subterfuge of performing other cosmetic maintenance. For whatever reason, you do not have any critical distance from this article. I have asked you repeatedly to take a step back from it. I will ask you to do so again and request that this AfD be closed. I imagine that you will fell compelled to respond to this message by arguing or pointing out some of my actions regarding this article. Do so if you must but I still encourage you to take a step back. Otto4711 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to me it is showing that this is a bad faith nom, and in conjuction with some of your responces here border on being uncivil. EnsRedShirt 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then report me to an admin, because this is about discussing the notability of this article, not judging whether or not I'm being uncivil, or nominating in bad faith. -- Scorpion 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your conduct regarding this article from the time it was written is very relevant to this nomination. The actual response in context of the administrator you asked about re-nominating this article, whose response you then point to as justification for your campaign, is very relevant to this nomination. Your failure to take that advice to heart by copying and pasting the argument that couldn't win you a deletion the last time without offering any new or compelling evidence in support of the nomination is very relevant to this nomination. Your apparent refusal to consider Wikipedia:Guide to deletion is very relevant to this nomination. Otto4711 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't you defend the article without attacking me? As that one administrator told you: focus on the editing, not the editor. Nothing I did is against the rules, so stop bringing it up as if it is. -- Scorpion 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have questioned your conduct. If you choose to take questioning your conduct as an attack on you personally, that's your unfortunate choice. I have already defended this article repeatedly at the previous AfD. This second nomination has nothing to do with the article itself and everything to do with the motivation of the person who nominated it. You have displayed a strong bias against this article since it was created. This nomination is nothing but a continuation of your attempt to enforce your bias. You may very well be acting within the letter of the rules but your taking refuge within the letter doesn't change the fact that you're acting outside their spirit. Otto4711 12:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note Scorpion's seeming bad faith in this nomination, per some of his comments above regarding this and the previous afd discussion which ended less than a day ago. Dugwiki 22:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My good or bad faith is not in question here, this article is. As well, the Calgary Sun is hardly a national newspaper. -- Scorpion 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your faith is in question here, as indicated by my questioning it and Otto's comment above. So yes, we're questioning whether you are in fact simply biased against the article because you didn't receive the consensus you wanted this week.
One more thing - the other afds mentioned regarding other contestents seem to indicate they had a lack of published references. This article, though, has published references, so does not suffer that problem. Dugwiki 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers." The Calgary Sun is not a national publication. -- Scorpion 22:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" - He has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published interviews. Dugwiki 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't change the fact that the Calgary Sun is not national. -- Scorpion 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't relevant, one way or another, since he meets criteria 2 of the notability guideline (which makes no mention of "national publications"). You're saying he fails point 3, but I'm saying he passes point 2. Dugwiki 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then point 2 and point 3 contradict eachother. -- Scorpion 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Survivor contestent articles should be handled consistently. If other contestents have similar references to this one, they should be treated the same way. Unreferenced articles should be deleted. I don't have a problem, though, with articles that are otherwise referenced by multiple published articles about the subject being kept. I've never watched Survivor, personally, but if that stance means more Survivor contestents have articles, then more power to them. Dugwiki 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the only Survivor contestants that get a lot of post-show recognition (and thus pages with a lot of info) are those that made it to the final 4, and specifically those that also appeared in All-Stars (not mutually exclusive sets). So about 25% of the contestants have pages. This means about 150 more paged will be made, with rather simple statements like "John Q Smith was a contestant on Survivor Alaska. He is from Anytown, USA, and is a part time editor" with otherwise minimal backup. This makes the information pretty much duplicate what is already on the CBS website and fan sites for these contestants. --Masem 00:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quickly reply, 1) this particular article does not simply say "he was a contestent on Survivor from Anytown USA". It's quite a bit lengthier than that. If a different article about a Survivor contestent appears that is little more than a one or two sentence stub, then that can obviously be safely deleted. That's not the case for this afd though. 2) I don't really see a problem with duplicating information that also happens to appear on another website. In fact, since Wikipedia isn't a primary source, all the material in Wikipedia has already supposedly been published before and is available elsewhere. Thus duplication with a fan site isn't a problem, and in fact would be the norm for all articles about anything in pop culture. Dugwiki 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the JP article, in of itself, isn't bad and if it weren't for being a Survivor contestant (like 200+ other people) I'd not have the issue; it's just, again, if a new user that doesn't see this discussion but sees that JP (a early outted player with a few wikifiable and links that could be added), they may try to make similar pages for any other Survivor contestant with even less notability. As a counter-/co-example, Bobby Jon Drinkard is article for another Survivor contestant. This article has no biographical info, and mearly is a restating of the information of the main Survivor season articles he was in. I'd strongly suggest that be up for deletion. Then there's Gregg Carey, where the bulk of the article is based on Survivor season info, and has a tiny tiny bio line as well. That's the murky water I'm concerned about: is that page notable or not? --Masem 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you say, you don't consider this article to be too bad and wouldn't have an issue aside from the fact that he was a Survivor contestent, then this article should be kept. If someone else write another article about a different contestent, and that article has no biographical info or lacks references, etc, then that article should be deleted. We have to consider the articles individually in terms of their published references and whether or not the article is simply a stub with little to no information. Dugwiki 19:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mael, I don't think both have to go the same way as I agree Stephen Colbert Day is about as notable as Bradmas, but I don't think that sources making something notable is at issue here as much as one persons vendetta versus a certain article, and how many people must think of an article notable before it is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the pedia. This person is obviously notable to a certain segment of the population even if he is not notable to you me or scorpion. Why is our non notability of him a reason to delete the article? There are 1.6 million + articles on the pedia now I doubt that I will ever see most of them, does that mean they should be deleted because they are not notable to everyone?? Of course not. EnsRedShirt 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going by recognition, then I'd guess that the millions of people who've watched the Colbert Report in the past week or two would say Stephen Colbert Day is a bit more recognizable than the dozens of people who've heard of Bradmas. ;-) And on the same grounds, I'd bet that a lot more people watch Colbert Report and remember the discussions about SCD than there are that watched Survivor and remember some guy that was only on the show for a couple weeks, didn't do anything apparantly notable or memorable, and then left to go join another reality show with a much smaller fan base. But from what I saw on this and the last AfD, most people weren't judging based on whether or not they recognized or remembered the guy (since everybody has different experiences, that's hard to judge), but they were instead judging on how many references there were to news articles about him. Now, the SCD article is up for AfD on the opposite grounds, that even though there are a lot of news articles about it, it's not innately notable (which is a similar argument that I'd made on the previous AfD here). And if SCD isn't innately notable (when it was mentioned several times on a highly rated nighttime show), then I have trouble seeing JP as innately notable (when he was only on 3 episodes of a highly rated reality series) as well. Just my thoughts... --Maelwys 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel better, Mael, I'd probably recommend keeping the SCD article if it is properly referenced and doesn't comfortably fit within the text of Colbert's main article. I have no problem with well referenced articles about subjects that receive coverge from multiple published sources being kept. Dugwiki 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. After reviewing the SCD article, I notice it actually doesn't have good references in the article. So in fact I'd probably recommend only keeping if adequate references could be provided within the article. It needs a good reference clean up to be kept. Dugwiki 18:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the nomination of an article for deletion 37 minutes after a previous discussion to be more ridiculous. The arguments about the article have already been heard, and no consensus to delete was reached. Scorpion, is it your intention to continue to nominate the article for deletion until an outcome you consider favorable occurs? I do not intend this as a rhetorical question. --Maxamegalon2000 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? Focus on the article and not the "motives". -- Scorpion 13:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, your motivation in nominating this article immediately after its previous AfD closed matters a great deal to this nomination. Bad faith in the nomination process matters a great deal. The history of the nominator in relation to the nominated article matters a great deal. When a nominator has stated in the course of the nomination that he doesn't care if the nomination is closed because he will simply wait a week or a month and re-nominate, that matters a great deal. Otto4711 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's funny: People are completely ignoring my and Maelwys' arguments simply because I nominated this article not long after a previous afd which ended in no consensus. And people say this afd is a waste of time because I nominated it so soon, I say it's a waste of time because people are merely voting because of my supposed actions. And of course, the defenders are taking the easy route and saying "he nominated it too soon. The article should stay ONLY because of that" and you keep bringing it up because you CAN'T defend the article and your resorting to attacking my methods. -- Scorpion 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel better, I didn't ignore your arguments. I specifically replied to them above. I also said that, on top of my other reasoning, I suspect you might be taking the afd too personally and therefore the afd nomination itself might be biased or for bad faith motives, or that it might be preventing you from objectively considering comments to the contrary of your opinion. Dugwiki 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't ignore your arguments either, the first time you made them in the AfD that closed 37 minutes before you opened this one. I didn't find them persuasive then and I don't find them persuasive now. Since you offered nothing new in your copy-and-paste re-nomination, and given your history with this article wherein after you were unsuccessful in redirecting it you repeatedly removed links to it from multiple Wikipedia entries in an attempt to isolate it, there is nothing else for me to respond to this second time around except your motivation. Otto4711 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, just to seperate myself from the crowd, then, I neither watch Survivor nor have I ever even heard of JDMA. Dugwiki 17:31, 2 February 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