Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie White (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 to Survivor:Samoa. As mentioned in the previous relist, the "keep" !votes are of very poor quality and this didn't change much in the later discussion. I am redirecting to "Survivor:Samoa", but the target can be changed (e.g., to "List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants") after local discussion. Any content worth merging elsewhere is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie White

edit
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Natalie White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sure, this person won $1 million in Survivor: Samoa, but I don't see how else she is significant outside Survivor. Even "appearances" and "reception" were Survivor-related. Should be redirected to either that season article or list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Survivor winner. Deleting her would be like deleting a Super Bowl winner. Not real sure why all these Survivor posts keep coming up. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is being a winner sufficient to keep the article about this person? And a Super Bowl winner is a winning team, not a winning player. A player of the winning Super Bowl team may or may not be notable. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, readers would expect more from the article about the Survivor: Samoa winner. If it falls short, then why else keeping the article besides... being a "winner"? George Ho (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @George Ho - Since, you want to talk about individuals, we can stick to individual sports - Why is winning a Boxing, UFC or Olympic title notable? Is it because they are popular sports/events? Survivor's popular. Is it because the media covers those events? The media covers Survivor and doesn't cover things like porn, which are extremely popular, so media coverage isn't always the best way to judge anyway. Is it because you have to beat other people to win one of those titles/events? Same thing with Survivor. Is it because those are physical games over mental games? Well, Survivor is a very physical game with many athletic competitions such as swimming, lifting, climbing and often things like wrestling, basketball and so forth. What differences do you really see? Additionally, how would you say someone like Mark Magsayo is more notable? What other things has he accomplished outside of boxing? Nothing, yet nobody would ever really say he doesn't deserve a page here even though it's WP:BLP1E. I really hope you don't go with WP:OTHERSTUFF in your explanation as well. The argument really just comes down to WP:JDL. KatoKungLee (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hope you don't go with WP:OTHERSTUFF in your explanation as well. I think you already did by comparing a Survivor winner to a Super Bowl winner... and further down. And comparing Survivor to other sports. (You also didn't mention that Survivor also is a reality TV show with strategic, social, and political aspects.) Oh, and Magsayo participated in individual boxing events, while White... participated in just one Survivor season, and even individual challenges are also part of the Samoa season, which is... one "event" to me. George Ho (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It has to be compared since you don't believe it's that Survivor is important enough on its own. I agree that Survivor is not considered by some to be a sport, but it's an athletic, mental, social and strategic competition and trying to convince Survivor fans that it is any different than other competitions is never going to happen. I don't think the television show part is important because various sports are also on TV and have various elements geared towards TV like commercial breaks, half-time shows, instant replays, interviews and so forth. While sporting events can exist without television, so could Survivor, it would just be harder to follow. The various challenges happen once, involve multiple people and awards/rewards are given out for winning them. Since you can win a challenge and still lose the game or lose a challenge and still win a game they are separate events. Of course, they have impact on the final outcome, but you can also lose a boxing match and go on to win a title (or lose a round and win the match), you can lose a heat in the olympics and still win a medal and you can lose an NFL game and still win the title. Again, the debate really just comes down to the media and/or various people believing that one competition is more important or more legitimate than other, which is WP:JDL.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" opinions are of very poor quality, asserting notability for winning a reality TV show without basis in applicable guidelines. This needs more discussion of the quality and quantity of available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the season's page. She's not Boston Rob. Most of these winners have faded away beyond fan sites and convention appearances. I don't find anything connected to this person outside the Survivor win, beyond the typical celebrity fluff stories. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets our guidelines for WP:ENT#1. Our article refers to her as a "TV personality" which redirects to "celebrity". The person also has SIGCOV in national media. Being the winner of the show/season confers some notability. Lightburst (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notable or not, even as a "TV personality", her significance outside Survivor has been limited at best. I have yet to see her other roles being hugely significant as her Survivor win. George Ho (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References seems credible Christopheronthemove (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do credible references prove that she's independent of winning the Samoa season and save the article from being potentially redirected to a destination target? Reading the whole article, (the context of) the whole biography is mostly Samoa-based... or Survivor-based, even with other less significant appearances she made. George Ho (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If credible sources say so, we have to believe so. Wikipedia is mainly based on credible sources. The People article , The Victoria Advocate article etc are credible one which can't be ignored Christopheronthemove (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's comment - applying WP:GNG to prove her notability is one thing, but complying with WP:NOT and WP:BLP is something to consider or weigh more. Even with notability, an article violating either policy is to me more serious to factor in. (Oh, and the above user is reported in a recent SPI case --George Ho (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE or redirect per BLP1E. OtherStuffExists is poor rationale which is most of the “keep” !votes. I’ll note that Russell Hantz, the season’s runner-up has an article, but that’s because he’s notable beyond BLP1E. And sure, there are lots of sources here. But they are all referencing the BLP1E. Bottom line is at the moment this is a BLP1E, regardless of “other winners have articles” and sourcing also points to a single event. I see no other “keep” argument based on policy. Frankly I would close this myself except for having just !voted on it. This is a no-brainer. Artificial Nagger (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Artificial Nagger, since WP:BLP1E does not apply if the person sought publicity, which this individual did by showing up on the set of Survivor and agreeing to be filmed, that's enough to rate as a high-profile-individual per WP:LPI. She fits the criteria. LPI must be applied, but it's possible that closers who close pages which contain long discussions in a minute or two may have never analyzed that, which is why discussion participants should. Please have another look at the two links, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is a policy, the purpose of which is stated quite clearly (emphasis added)
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article
And then the “three conditions” follows. And they apply to this and many other ‘Survivor’ articles. One could claim these contestants aren’t trying to be low-profile simply by appearing on the show, but I find that somewhat rather disingenuous an “ask” for people to swallow; these contestants have demonstrated they are low-profile because the sources only refer to them with respect to the 1E. Are they attempting to capitalize their 1E fame? What do the sources say? This reminds me of the old NFL adage of “If you’re not cheating you’re not trying”. Or in this case I’d expect to see some effort on part of the person trying to raise their profile. I’m not seeing it. And WP:LPI is an essay. It has some good advice, but even that points to these “winners” being LPI because profile can change over time. Because taken as a whole, they don’t seem to be seeking celebrity. This formulamatic approach you’re pushing is ignoring the spirit of BLP1E that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. “The Community” feels Survivor is just not that important. I’m sorry, but there it is. Artificial Nagger (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the in-depth answer. WP:LPI is linked as the description of low-profile-individual for BLP1E and must be met to qualify. A low-profile-individual is one who doesn't seen publicity, such as a private citizen caught up in a news story (that's actually what 1E means taking the linked LPI into account, which it must be per how it's worded). Randy Kryn (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“must be met”. No, just no. This is Wiki-lawyering. Essays do not have any force or mandates on policy. A link to an essay is merely there for reference. It’s not a formula that has to be “met”. If low-profile-individual needed an actual definition it would have been spelled out in the policy. Occam's Razor applies. What is a LPI? We knows it when we sees it. Or more appropriately, the sources tells us what kind of profile they have. And for this BLP, and most of the other “winner” BLPs up for deletion would be considered low profile by any reasonable editor. Artificial Nagger (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case, if you are swayed into believing that BLP1E doesn't apply, then how about applying WP:BIO1E instead? As I believe, it can apply to any individual known for one notable event, regardless of how "low" or "high" one's profile status is. George Ho (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Swayed? It's written clearly, WP:BLP1E does not apply, and with your comments you seem to be agreeing. Can you at least admit that no, it doesn't apply, and that all who used it for this series of deletion nominations are incorrect? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm sorry to say, Bob Crowley is now redirected to Survivor: Gabon. How much more can you rebut those favoring deletion/redirecting? If you disagree, then please contact Star Mississippi who closed the AFD. George Ho (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BIO1E is cut from the same mold as BLP1E. It’s about singular events. If it’s one event we focus on the event, not the person. If the person becomes interesting enough, then its BLP time. Artificial Nagger (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Survivor:Samoa - WP:OSE arguments aside, not enough in-depth coverage outside that relating to show to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 01:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Survivor:Samoa. There's a lot of sourcing that isn't independent or reliable; blogs, or sites associated with the show. The coverage that remains could be used to write a stub, or it could be used to supply a little detail on the parent page. I'd argue the latter serves the reader better, as there's centralization of information without due weight issues. Many keep opinions are not based in policy; a person could be a superbowl winner, but if all we can say about them is name, hometown, superbowl winner, then we shouldn't have a standalone article about them either. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:56, 18 March 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natalie_White_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1163651283"