Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. P. Calderon

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 Speedy Keep - The nomination was probably bona fide, but it is the 3rd in under a month. The article was renamed in the meantime (spacing), making it easy to have missed the previous two. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. Calderon

This article isn't that relevant as this isn't well known nor was he great in Survivor: Cook Islands. People who were in the jury deserve to have an article I believe. Willbender 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close This is the third AfD for this article in less than a month. The previous results were no consensus and keep. Notability is asserted by the individual's Survivor appearance, his professional volleyball career, his modeling career, and his appearance on The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency. Seriously, though, third AfD in less than a month. --Maxamegalon2000 01:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a different member nominating it (I know my good friend Otto is going to allege that this guy is a sock of mine... AGAIN, but I assure you, I had nothing to do with this afd), I see no reason why the AFD shouldn't be followed through. Recently, Survivors who finished SECOND AND THIRD in the show have been going through afds and losing, so it was only a matter of time before somebody targeted this article. I'm sick of the wikipolitical philosophy that articles that survive 2 afds should automatically be kept, if people who finished THIRD and SECOND aren't considered notable, how is a guy who was voted out fourth and was in a couple episodes of a low-rated cable show notable? -- Scorpion 01:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speediest possible keep and step the hell off the article - As noted, this is the third time in a month that this article has been AFDed. The first closed with no consensus and the second, opened just minutes after the first one closed, was closed with a KEEP. There is absolutely no justification for nominating and renominating and renominating this article. The subject clearly passes WP:BIO. "The article isn't relevant" is not a valid criterion for deletion. "This isn't well known," in other words WP:IDONTKNOWIT, is not a valid criterion for deletion. "Nor was he great on Survivor: Cook Islands" is not a valid criterion for deletion. The nomination does not cite any guideline or policy that the article violates and while I am doing my best to assume good faith, the constant attacks on this article are absolutely ridiculous. The matter of Scorpion's continuing hostility to this article and his extremely poor conduct regarding it are not relevant to this discussion, as much as he would like to make this about me and him. Otto4711 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's called precedent. Other Survivor contestants who were in the show considerably longer have been judged unfit for a page. See the following CURRENT afds: Bruce Kanegai, Brandon Bellinger, Ian Rosenberger, Sundra Oakley, Burton Roberts , Lillian Morris, Ami Cusack, Gregg Carey, Jennifer Lyon, Rafe Judkins, Becky Lee, all of whom made the merge, several of who made the final and all of which are heading towards deletion. There will probably be several more coming too. Also, it's been more than 30 days since the last nomination, so why do people keep saying "3 nominations within a month"? And, has this guy done anything of note on JDMA? It seems to me that all he has done is appear in a few episodes of 2 reality shows. As for the "sources", notability is more than counting the number of published pieces on any given subject. -- Scorpion 04:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your points in order: 1) "Precedent" is certainly something to consider, but each article is to be judged on its own merits. This article has been judged on its merits and the consensus was to keep it. That some other contestants may end up deleted is irrelevant to whether this article should be kept. 2) This article was last nominated for deletion on January 30. It was nominated by you 37 minutes after the previous AFD closed. The second AFD closed on February 5. Today is February 24. It has been 25 days since the article was nominated for the second time and 19 days since that second AFD closed. 3) Yes, he did something very notable on JDMA. He came out of the closet on national television and landed the cover of an internationally distributed magazine. 4) Notability guidelines require that a subject be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Calderon has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, including as previously noted an internationally distributed magazine. Otto4711 04:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But was the entire series focused around his coming out of the closet? Going back to precedent, several of the early Survivors were on the covers of US Magazine, People Magazine and Entertainment Weekly and yet they don't have pages. And like I said, I had absolutely nothing to do with the nomination of this article. -- Scorpion 04:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire series doesn't have to be focused on his coming out for his participation to be notable. And I'm honestly not sure why you are not grasping the concept that every article stands or falls on its own. Every single article on every single person who ever even heard of Survivor could be deleted tomorrow and it means nothing to whether the Calderon article is kept. If you think some of those other contestants should have pages, and you have the requisite multiple independent third-party sources for them, then write the articles and if they get AFDed I'll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you to defend them. But for god's sake, stop using them as the whetstone for the axe you're grinding over Calderon's article. Otto4711 04:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per above, as you can't just keep nominating an article for deletion because you didn't like the outcome of previous AfDs. Catbag 04:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep You have got to be kidding me another one in a month?? AfD is not a once aweek process when you don't like the outcome of a previous one. EnsRedShirt 05:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close. You can't just re-nominate because you don't like the previous result. Besides, I find the article suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, I had nothing to do with the nominating of this article. I think the nominator is a newer editor who had no idea the article had previously nominated. I didn't nominate it because I knew people would just use the "It's survived before, let's keep it" principal, which is why Wikipedia is stuck with some pretty useless articles. It's insane to think that there are many TV characters from well-known shows that don't have pages because they aren't "individually notable" and yet, this guy has one. -- Scorpion 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to believe that Scorpion had anything to do with this nomination. As for the nominator's awareness of the previous AfD's, I did reply to his comment about this article at Talk:Survivor: Cook Islands. --Maxamegalon2000 06:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per precedent. Other participants of the show have had articles --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, many Survivor, Big Brother, Apprentice and Amazing Race contestants are losing their pages and seeing as he is the earliest voted out Survivor that has a page, it was only a matter of time before somebody nominated it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Meets the notability requirements. Diego Cervantes 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep yes, consensus can change, but not in this time. No new reasons for deletion have been added and this seems like nothing more than an attempt to re-vote until you get the result you want. Koweja 16:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, I don't need to explain notability, but I want to chime in that the number of times this has been nominating is absurd. When nominating an article, please ensure that it will not be a rehash of a previous nomination. That implies either new evidence is provided, or a significant amount of time has passed. (Generally on the order of months) —siro χ o 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most of these numerous nominations are appear to be out of bias for this person. He certainly has had enough media attention to be considered notable under WP:BIO. This article does require some wikification, but this should ultimately be the last AfD for this article. Mkdw ^talk 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Yes, consensus can change, but not this fast. I won't say that the nomination is WP:POINT as the nom may not have checked the talk page. -- Black Falcon 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong if not Speedy Keep per WP:BIO notable outside show, needs some slight cleanup to verfify references. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 05:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and if possible a policy that closely-spaced repeated AfDs are disruption of WP. DGG 07:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Third AfD since January is verging on the abusive. It may warrant deletion, but current consensus appears to consider even 4 months as insufficient time for a renomination, regardless of the article's merits. Ohconfucius 06:48, 26 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.