Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Sheppard
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 no consensus. Sock infected AFD with some weak rationales for keeping as well, no prejudice for relisting. Secret account 07:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Phillip Sheppard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reality TV contestants are generally not notable. 96.224.44.119 16:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. 168.94.245.2 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User is now blocked. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.117.230 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, never even won the show anyway. 206.71.242.249 (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The following comment was posted to the article talk page, but it belongs here: Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I came to Wikipedia for its content. He regularly come up in discussions on"Survivor" game play.
- This person is a part of Survivor lore, both past and (as of this week) present. He has been chosen by Survivor executives to play as a "Favorite". In addition, a book about him was released this week. Mr. Sheppard also participates in many charity events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.26.15 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That book about him was also cowritten by him, so can hardly be considered an independent source. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm far from convinced of the subject's notability, but must point out to the nominator and those giving "per nom" and "per above" opinions that this discussion is about Phillip Sheppard in particular, not about reality TV contestants in general. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, now appearing on multiple seasons of a reality show, so there would be no single redirect target, and the article is well sourced. Frietjes (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep All the other Survivor contestants have a page, also all these IP accounts are SPA's JayJayWhat did I do? 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No they don't. Only ones that were notable for some other reason like Lisa Whelchel (she was an actress) or winners for the most part, have pages. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Frietjes plus he is also a United States Army veteran and the book co-written or not has been promoted by third parties such as on Rob Cesternino's podcast and yes Cesternino is third party because the book is a separate project from Survivor. DrumstickJuggler (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. 24.46.86.58 (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that the only edits made by your IP Adress since January 1st, 2007 (more than six years) is to edit this and the AfD discussion for Francesca Hogi. The WP:DUCK test suggsts that you are IP-hopping to WP:VOTESTACK--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt this could be the same user. WHOIS info shows 168.94.245.2 is from Minnesota and 206.71.242.249 is from Kansas while nominator is from New York. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that the only edits made by your IP Adress since January 1st, 2007 (more than six years) is to edit this and the AfD discussion for Francesca Hogi. The WP:DUCK test suggsts that you are IP-hopping to WP:VOTESTACK--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to start assuming bad faith, but there are proxies as well as the small but still technical possibility that the IPs either know each other and of this sitation or that it could even be the same person (for example, someone on a business trip from one state to the next). I know it's a small possibility, but it's not impossible. It's especially interesting that there is a large amount of IPs interested in this situation, at least a number of which have very few otherwise edits in their contribution histories. The WHOIS may say one thing but the duck test suggests mad quacking.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable and all sources are about the show and nothing else. 2604:2D00:5:0:216:3EFF:FEF2:5BEC (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WRONG! The book is seperate from the show. Therefore, your "reasoning" is a failure. Maybe you could actually try reading the article next time. Concensus is best reached when contributors actually assess the sitation properly which includes looking at everything presented, this isn't a voting circus.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, he had no pre-show notability, I really didn't know he appeared on Survivor and didn't watched on his Redemption Island season. ApprenticeFan work 01:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But he does have the book, not just Survivor and co-written or not, the book has been "promoted" by third parties.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reminder to those not reading properly that the book is seperate from the show.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is either a sockpuppet or hasn't read the article properly. If you continue to play the person rather than the ball you risk having your arguments in favour of the article ignored. If you think that the book contributes to notability then you need to provide evidence that it has received independant coverage in reliable sources, such as reviews in major newspapers, rather than just link to an apparently self-published web site that republishes a press release about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop assuming that I'm assuming these things. The person I suggested hadn't read the article properly specifically said that all sources were about the show and nothing else when that is blatantly wrong, regardless of how notable the book is, because the book is seperate from the show. By replying to me, you are the one going off on an unnecessary tangent, not me. Looks like you could take your own advice at playing the ball not the person, because if you don't, people might think you are being a hypocrite instead of someone actually keeping relevant to the discussion.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave you advice about how you can best achieve what you want, i.e. to get the article kept. If you don't want to accept such help then that's your prerogative, but please decline the offer without using words such as "hypocrite". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you are assuming that I want the article kept. I honestly couldn't care less. What I actually care about is that people actually follow what Wikipedia stands for which includes not votestaking, actually reading what is front of them and so forth. You didn't give me help, because what you said doesn't apply to me, even if it applies to you.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that you want this kept is not an assumption, because you preceded a comment above with a bolded "Keep". You might like to note that I am the one who prevented speedy deletion of this article, who reverted an attempt at redirection without consensus, and who pointed out the logical flaw in the deletion rationale presented by the nominator of this discussion, so treating me as some sort of enemy is pretty obviously counterproductive to your cause. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I bolded keep because I care about Wikipedia's policies being followed. I'm not treating you as an enemy, I'm treating you as someone who doesn't get it. Stop assuming, you don't know my true cause obviously.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that you want this kept is not an assumption, because you preceded a comment above with a bolded "Keep". You might like to note that I am the one who prevented speedy deletion of this article, who reverted an attempt at redirection without consensus, and who pointed out the logical flaw in the deletion rationale presented by the nominator of this discussion, so treating me as some sort of enemy is pretty obviously counterproductive to your cause. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you are assuming that I want the article kept. I honestly couldn't care less. What I actually care about is that people actually follow what Wikipedia stands for which includes not votestaking, actually reading what is front of them and so forth. You didn't give me help, because what you said doesn't apply to me, even if it applies to you.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave you advice about how you can best achieve what you want, i.e. to get the article kept. If you don't want to accept such help then that's your prerogative, but please decline the offer without using words such as "hypocrite". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop assuming that I'm assuming these things. The person I suggested hadn't read the article properly specifically said that all sources were about the show and nothing else when that is blatantly wrong, regardless of how notable the book is, because the book is seperate from the show. By replying to me, you are the one going off on an unnecessary tangent, not me. Looks like you could take your own advice at playing the ball not the person, because if you don't, people might think you are being a hypocrite instead of someone actually keeping relevant to the discussion.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete book and subject fails notability miserably. Sporty213 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Blocked as sock. CtP (t • c) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]Delete per above. Foac (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)— Foac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I'll gladly take the opportunity to say that Foac's post falls under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Have a nice day. --DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Foac's behavior is suspiciously sismilar to that of Sporty213 (talk · contribs), the blocked sockpuppet whose comments he has been restoring, un-slashing, and supporting across this and at least one other AfD. I'd file an SPI, but I don't know the sockmaster. CtP (t • c) 22:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked as sock. CtP (t • c) 22:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: As ApprenticeFan said, he had no real pre-Survivor notability. He does seem to have a relatively small but nevertheless adequate level of notability for his connection to the book [1] (note that not everything there is a reliable source). CtP (t • c) 23:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of the sources found by that search reliable? And, if so, which? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's some borderline reliability. This looks like it could be a reliable source. EW is reliable, but that's already in the article… Taking a closer look, a couple of others which look like they could potentially be reliable sources are false postives, such as this one. Notability is still comparatively weak, and I'm displaying more inclusionism here than I typically do. I will probably revise my !vote. CtP (t • c) 23:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After mulling it over for a bit, I've settled on weak delete due to spotty notability described by me above. CtP (t • c) 00:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You could instead learn to call a spade a spade. A spade with a chalk marking on it, is still a spade. Therefore, spotty notability is still notability.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, allow me to reprhase: the level of "notability" I perceive for Phillip Sheppard is lower than what I would offer a standard "keep" !vote upon, and upon revisiting my prior searches there is less available than I initially thought. As for the spade metaphor, I see this as a spade missing its metal end: yes, it's still technically a spade, but it's not enough to be considered functional. CtP (t • c) 05:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You could instead learn to call a spade a spade. A spade with a chalk marking on it, is still a spade. Therefore, spotty notability is still notability.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2013 (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.