Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Crowley (Survivor contestant)


 * 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: Gabon. This is a challenging one, however when looking at the policy basis, those against retaining a standalone have stronger weight behind their !votes. That said, no reason not to redirect (or to delete before redirecting) has been made, and this is a viable search, ergo AtD. Star  Mississippi  01:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Bob Crowley (Survivor contestant)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

May be the oldest Survivor winner to this date, but I fail to see how he is significant outside Survivor. I have doubts that he meets WP:NACADEMICS. Should be redirected to either Survivor: Gabon or list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators,  and Television. George Ho (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Certainly no pass of WP:Prof. WP:BLP1E not enough for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC).
 * Keep there is prolonged coverage of Crowley in both local and national news sources.--User:Namiba 22:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Namiba RedPatch (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Speedy Keep, he won the game, that's notable and is recognized as notable. Per Namiba, lots of coverage. Wanting to delete the page of the oldest winner and not all winners seems a consistency and due weight concern (see navbox Survivor (American TV series) contestants) Randy Kryn (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but even winning the game no longer guarantees having their own article. Brian Heidik and Chris Daugherty are now redirects per their own AFDs. George Ho (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're picking off the winners one by one? That should stop here. Those are two of the most poorly attended RfD's in existence, so I'd suggest we get this old guy winner saved and then put those two back up. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried the Draft:Brian Heidik and even Draft:List of Survivor (American TV series) finalists (seasons 1–10), but that went nowhere. Just try to contact (Daugherty AfD) or  (Heidik AfD) if you can. George Ho (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep winners of the main series of Survivor should keep their articles and I feel Bob's win was surprising enough to make it notable enough to warrant a keep Thecheeseistalking99 (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Survivor winner. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Survivor: Gabon - there is no claim to notability except winning the game which is a clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E and I dont see any coverage beyond that event. From the comments above, I also dont see any actual arguments *why* survivor winners should be notable. In general game show contestants (even winners) are not notable per WP:ENT. --hroest 19:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 21:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Clear delete and a WP:TROUT to the keep voters. This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. When someone is notable only for one event, there should be a reditect to that event. As there seems to be no notability outside Survivor, that is the exact case here. Jeppiz (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on being Survivor winner and also Men's Health article.Pershkoviski (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Being a winner of one season still doesn't guarantee a stand-alone article, and the Men's Health article IMO hasn't provided anything substantially new to help improve the article. Also, it comes down to WP:BLP, including WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:BLPPRIVACY. George Ho (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being a Survivor winner does not confer notability, and the sources presented all look to be BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , aren't most, say, major league ballplayers known for one event, playing baseball? Survivor is similar in terms of effort and uniqueness. To win Survivor is quite notable and rare. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Crowley is the oldest winner of Survivor. This could be considered similar to nominating the only minority winner, or the only female winner. Why the oldest as one of the few to be chosen for a deletion attempt? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.
 * You've been around long enough to know how useless the OTHERSTUFF argument is and the dim view the community takes on spurious accusations of discrimination. JoelleJay (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @JoelleJay - Why do you see Bob Crowley or other Survivor winners as being different than an athlete or a professional chess player? What do you think the differences are from winning survivor and winning a boxing world title or a major chess tournament and so forth? I think it would help a lot to understand where you are coming from.KatoKungLee (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what I think, I didn't make whatever provision for athletes BLP1E is alluding to. In my opinion BLP1E should be far stricter. JoelleJay (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Survivor is an athletic competition as much as it is a social or mental competition. And I'd argue that sports are just as much of a mental competition as they are an athletic competition, since players shut down mentally and cannot perform because as well of it. So for Survivor fans, it's just going to come across as WP:JDL. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , then how about what I point out below in regards to BLP1E, a full coverage article by Business Insider about his camp? Isn't that another notable "thing" (if winning Survivor isn't enough). Randy Kryn (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

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   19:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, seems to be a BLP1E concern. What about the Business Insider article which is about Crowley's retreat? Isn't that about something totally different than his Survivor win? Randy Kryn (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that source reliable? Per WP:RSP, there's no consensus on its reliability. How do you know for sure that the article is reliable? --George Ho (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the community's opinion is on Business Insider Finance columns WRT reliability (RSP is uncertain), and the coverage is still very much situated in the context of his winning Survivor. JoelleJay (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is, especially and specifically for cultural events (the campground as part of the local and national culture). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's for articles in its culture section. This one was under finance. JoelleJay (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment again towards the BLP1E event, Crowley's autobiography, Making Waves: The Stories of Maine's Bob Crowley, was published in 2009. As an author, added to the show and the media-covered campground, that's three notable events. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * These "events" should come down to WP:PAGEDECIDE. Readers expect more from the article about the oldest winner. I don't see how an autobiography and a campground can save the article from being redirected to a destination target. Sure, his efforts haven't stopped at Gabon, but using these two as determination to not only prove his notability but also to save this article? I'm unsure whether I'm willing to do that. George Ho (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously claiming that writing an autobiography is a notability-granting event? What?? JoelleJay (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Survivor: Gabon - Agree with those citing WP:BLP1E. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 13:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Survivor: Gabon or List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants (no preference between the two). No SIGCOV to establish notability independent of winning Survivor.  Frank   Anchor  19:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to the season page. Agree with the assertions of WP:BLP1E. -fuzzy510 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:NACTOR#1 appeared in 14 episodes of Survivor (American TV series) and on Live with Kelly and Ryan, Entertainment Tonight, and others. Lightburst (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't consider him a "celebrity", an "actor", or other things. And his TV appearances in those talk and news shows are guest roles.... and probably don't make much of an impact on entertainment field. He gained minor attention as the oldest Survivor winner at the time, but considering him a "celebrity" for just winning Gabon begs for more, doesn't it? Oh, and those episodes are only from Gabon season. George Ho (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In 2008 the producer admitted that the show casts actors. The contestants also have to attend Survivor School. Winning the show is significant. I think we are all wise to the fact that reality shows are not actually unscripted reality shows. Lightburst (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of those sources explicitly mention Crowley, and they don't consider him an "actor". I searched for reliable sources calling him an "actor" only to come up short and empty. Not even this questionnaire considers him an "actor". (If curious, I don't think this source is "independent" of Crowley, defined by WP:GNG, and shouldn't be used to determine Crowley's notability.) If I missed one reliable source calling him an "actor", I can stand corrected. Otherwise, I thought calling him an "actor" is farfetched, isn't it? George Ho (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If it helps to see it another way - he is an WP:ENTERTAINER and it is the same notability guide. He continues to get coverage as Randy Kryn has shown above. I find it odd that we have an effort to delete the bio. And now I must try to follow the advice in WP:COAL. Lightburst (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Professionally, he's neither an "actor" nor an "entertainer". How does being a challenge beast and then a Survivor winner automatically make him an "entertainer"? I don't think available sources label him an "entertainer", explicitly or not. I stand corrected, nonetheless, if I overlooked one reliable source labeling him that. George Ho (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to that season's page. Wasn't notable before the win, hasn't done much of anything since. This isn't 2005 where there have only been a few winners, they're almost a dime a dozen at this point. We're past Survivor season 20 now. Winning the tv show isn't as notable as it used be, beyond Boston Rob, most people are just another blip on the radar at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I've never watched Survivor, but even if there are 20 winners now, I think "winner" plus "something different from the other winners" (in this case, oldest so far) makes him notable. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * and what policy do you invoke to support your vote? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC).


 * Keep - The subject meets WP:BIO/WP:GNG, and I don't see that they meet the 3 criteria for WP:BLP1E. (I don't think he meets any of the three criteria, although as this AfD discussion suggests he may meet point (1) depending on your interpretation of the phrase "in the context of a single event".) As suggested in the essay WP:NOTBLP1E, the subject is a common case: "Subjects who were first notable for one event, and rode that fame into attention on their other endeavours." Suriname0 (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading BIO, I see WP:NBASIC saying that he must meet also GNG, but then I don't see how he meets WP:ANYBIO. NBASIC might suffice, but then there's WP:BIO1E (different from BLP1E), which addresses how to weigh one or another within a biography like this.
 * Reading GNG, however, "presumed" is one of things/criteria for the person to meet, but then it further says that the article itself would be perceived to violate WP:NOT per one discussion, regardless of notability. How and/or why do you think the article doesn't violate WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOTEVERYTHING?
 * Furthermore, do you think Survivor: Gabon is just one event or has more than one event? To me, the whole season is just one event, despite displaying multiple challenges and Tribal Councils and dialogue scenes. Also, I am uncertain whether his academic career or post-Survivor activities/events are noteworthy, but then by default, I'm more concerned about expressing the biography about the oldest winner at the time, which is addressed by WP:WHATISTOBEDONE (part of WP:NOT). George Ho (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , WP:BLUDGEON aside, Crowley, as mentioned above, won the season (notable), wrote a book (notable) and created a Business Insider acknowledged and reported on camp (notable). Please stop misleading Keep commentators by saying that this notable individual somehow isn't notable. You can think that, but that's a personal opinion and not based in the Wikipedia guidelines you link to. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll admit to being a little confused by your reply. Being a Survivor contestant I presume to be one event (although I've never seen the show and don't know much about its structure). You ask "why do you think the article doesn't violate WP:NOT?", a question I don't understand; the fundamental goal is for an encyclopedic article to capture the knowledge about the topic as reflected in significant coverage from reliable sources. It doesn't seem as though the Delete voters disagree that there is sustained, significant coverage of the subject, so the goal here is to assess whether the best editing outcome is a standalone article about Crowley vs covering Crowley in the article about the show. My reading of, e.g. the Business Insider and Men's Health pieces is that they include summary of Crowley's post-Survivor activities that I presume would be inappropriate to include in the primary article about the season. Suriname0 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why does a summary of Crowley's post-Survivor activities need to be in Wikipedia at all? Every article topic and subtopic contains more verifiable info than is included on the page it appears on; in fact exhaustive details are prohibited by NOT. As mentioned above, the coverage in the two sources is in the context of his Survivor win, with the only additional material being on his book and company, neither of which generated SIGCOV in BLP-level SIRS on its own (I'll note again that Business Insider is of questionable reliability at RSP). The piece in Men's Health is one in a long string of low-quality BuzzFeed-style articles by its author (e.g. 70 Hilarious Memes That Perfectly Describe Your Sex Life) and mostly regurgitates trivia from the Survivor fandom wiki before dropping an affiliate marketing link (tag=menshealth-auto-20) to Crowley's book on Amazon. All we get out of this is two sentences on what he did after Survivor. That's not enough in my opinion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, a very well written summary. , come on, it's pretty obvious that Crowley has survived this Tribal Council. I would think that at the very least this discussion comes across as 'no consensus', with 's case-closed above comment alone. Let's compare Suriname0's comment to Crowley having a hidden idol (WP:HIDDENIDOL, dibs) which is brought out near the end of the vote. Maybe would consider ending this AfD with Crowley still on the Island (or wherever Wikipedia exists in the aethersphere). That'd be a cool win for him. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Randy Kryn, I don't think this is completely fair. Personally, I read the arguments as favoring a Delete consensus, and my comment is certainly not (or intended to be) "case-closed". Suriname0 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello . I struck the case-closed comment because of your concern. That's how I read it though, it was a very good summary. This page has been stable since 2008, and since you don't watch the show, Crowley is an important part of its legacy as the oldest contestant. It's a popular show and, more importantly, was a pioneer of the reality show jugganaut which then took over television. This winner's notability comes from several angles and not just one (even though the one-notable thing is being used here seemingly as the sole reason to render him off-the-island, the metaphor I was playing with above). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey User:JoelleJay, I agree the Men's Health piece is questionable. The Business Insider piece looks better (but still not great), with evidence of some actual reporting going on. But I absolutely agree that the question "Why does a summary of Crowley's post-Survivor activities need to be in Wikipedia at all" is the crux of the issue. Basically, I don't trust my feelings on this issue because, well, I don't like the topic of the article. "Post-survivor activities" basically feel like WP:FANCRUFT to me, but if it's verifiable to a reliable secondary source... then I feel hard-pressed to say it doesn't deserve a sentence. Is it really more fancruft-y then when I look up a TV actor's personal life on Wikipedia? Genuinely interested to hear your further thoughts on this topic. Suriname0 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Suriname0, yep, I understand your predicament. WP:NOTWHOSWHO offers some guidance on this (related to BLP1E), as does NOTGOSSIP, which licenses selective exclusion of facts. We don't need to detail every relationship Brad Pitt has ever had, even though each of them is readily verifiable in multiple SIRS. Likewise, not every detail related to Survivor -- and the two post-TV facets of Crowley's life are certainly covered in this context -- needs to appear on Wikipedia. Pretty much all the contestants on the show have a "post-Survivor" section on their fandom entries with multiple sourced facts; if these don't need to appear on the main season's page, why should they be the basis for another article?
 * Anyway, I appreciate your measured responses here even if we disagree on the ultimately subjective assessment of DUEness and NOPAGE. It's a breath of fresh air to discuss this somewhat philosophically rather than with dogmatic pronunciations. JoelleJay (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I normally avoid the long AfDs... it was seeing that you had participated that led me to take a closer look! Always appreciate your responses. Anyway, those links are useful but still leave me a bit confused. WP:GOSSIP says "Not every facet of a celebrity's life ... warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those ... for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." For major figures like Brad Pitt, we have to be selective in order to create a coherent, reasonable length article. But for random people like Crowley, we only have the sourcing for a single sentence on his post-Survivor activities anyway! I do think anyone looking up Crowley would be "reasonably likely to have an interest" in his post-Survivor activities. The argument about other wikis is interesting, but it hasn't prevented English Wikipedia from becoming a sports statistics repository. Suriname0 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

He was non-notable before the event and non-notable after the event. The event itself was trivial so this is, at best, a WP:BLP1E. I hope the closing administrator will act on policy and will not allow themselves to be WP:Bludgeoned. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC).


 * I think you may wanna add "redirect" or "delete" for clarity and better readability. Please feel free to strike this comment out after this. George Ho (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my vote is at the top. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC).
 * Sources tell the story on Wikipedia. This page is well-sourced and is recognized as so by many editors above. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:Wikilawyering will not help here. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC).

Okay, being mistaken as a lawyer I will comply. WP:BLP1E fails because Crowley is not a WP:LPI (low-profile individual) who hasn't sought public attention - a direct requirement for WP:BLP1E (see point number 2, and please read the text of WP:LPI). He has sought and gained public attention. He has written a book, and opened a noted camp. But let's say is correct, and the weight of all of the Keep comments and of failing every sentence of WP:LPI are not enough to keep the page through at least a 'no consensus' ruling. Then the only policy left, and hopefully this won't be needed and what follows is just an academic exercise, is WP:IAR.

Hold on, don't stop reading. Many editors entirely miss or haven't comprehended the language used in the WP:IAR policy. Some make it out to be an exotic curiosity, and one which should never be used in AfD discussions. An editor was recently taken to ANI because he cited WP:IAR in some football AfDs, and, although I followed it awhile, I have no idea how it turned out. But the policy - not a guideline, or an essay, this is Wikipedia policy - tells us that if keeping a page is good for the encyclopedia, and removing it hurts the encyclopedia, it is kept. Automatically, per WP:IAR policy. The exact language: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." In this case, maintaining the encyclopedia by leaving this stable 2008 article alone, which many editors say to do. It seems that the closer would be obliged by Wikipedia policy to ignore the editors who point to an arguably encyclopedia-harming guideline about one event, and who then stretch it to its limit by claiming that Crowly, being an author and a notably sourced camp creator, means nothing. That he didn't really mean to be a public author. That he accidently created and promoted his camp and his connection to the camp. WP:LPI must be met to claim WP:BLP1E. It hasn't been. If somehow (?) it has, stretching the limit of purposely ignoring BLP1E requirements, then WP:IAR comes in to give the policy a nudge back to neutrality. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you're referring to this ANI discussion, right? From what I skimmed, the consensus nearly supported warning the user, but I'm unsure whether it went somewhere or nowhere. I couldn't read the ANI case fully, but I found that some of AFDs that the user participated in resulted in "kept" (not solely per IAR) and that some others resulted in either "deleted" or "redirected".
 * Speaking of IAR, I would be too reluctant to invoke it in order to ignore BLP1E and its spirit, especially when poorly referenced info or extensively detailed info about the said person would be told to readers. But I can't stop you from doing that. George Ho (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Please will a brave administrator put this time-wasting AfD out of its misery? Everything (and more) that can be said has been said. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC).
 * You did not address WP:LPI, which is a requirement for WP:BLP1E (see point number 2, and please read the text of WP:LPI). Only low-profile individuals can be the subject of BLP1E. It is limited to people who don't seek publicity and who somehow got caught up in an event. Crowley is a high-profile individual according to WP:LPI, so this page cannot be deleted by citing WP:BLP1E. Almost all of the delete "votes" and some of the redirect votes incorrectly use WP:BLP1E (rendering this discussion to overwhelmingly favoring keep). Randy Kryn (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're linking to an essay, which doesn't mean much and certainly doesn't invalidate BLP1E concerns. I disagree that being mildly self-promotional during the 1E (the book was released less than a month after the season concluded) turns one into an eternally high-profile individual. Given the only arguably SIGCOV piece covering his post-Survivor activities is a) in the context of Survivor, b) promoting his business, c) in the finance section of a yellow source, and d) from 7 years ago, I'd say the conditions of BLP1E are still met. Not to mention having the added material on Wiki only serves as PROMO for the subject's enterprises. JoelleJay (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E links to that essay to explain what a low-profile individual is, in the sentence saying that only low-profile individuals qualify for WP:BLP1E. The topic of this page is not a low-profile individual but a high-profile individual. His agreeing to appear on an entire season of Survivor rules it out, as do the book and the camp. BLP1E does not apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * By that logic anyone who is notable for one event in entertainment is automatically exempted from BLP1E. That's clearly not the case (and otherwise remains makes it clear "low-profile" must be interpreted outside the context of the event). The fact that we know almost nothing about his post-Survivor career is evidence that he has not sought further attention in 10+ years. Also, it seems like that essay was surreptitiously wikilinked in proposed text during a wider RfC on rewording BLP1E but did not get discussed itself. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to correct you, but the per one discussion, which somehow included a link to the essay. George Ho (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the RfC on rewording BLP1E I'm referring to. JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.