Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Clouser


 * 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   delete. Tone 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Brett Clouser

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No more notable than any other contestant this season. Appears to be little more than an advertisement for his fashion stuff. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Survivor: Samoa per WP:ONEEVENT. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He was more of a threat to the other contestants on the show than Natalie was and thus is probably more notable. He is an entrepreneur who founded The Monument of Our Hearts as well as being a big threat on the show. I believe he is very notable and should have an article about him. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Multiple users" seem to consist pretty much entirely of you and two or three anonymous IP users. His notability hasn't been improved one iota.  More INFORMATION has been added, but he's still just as non-notable as he ever was.  He's known for one reason only and that's the show.  He's no more notable than any other person on the series (he's certainly less notable than the winner of the show, and I also question rather strongly whether Natalie and Russell deserve their own pages), and in fact I don't remember him AT ALL until he got to the final five or six.  Delete under WP:ONEEVENT.  Lots of people are entrepreneurs, they don't get Wikipedia articles for that. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Basically a reality TV contestant with a business. Not in any way notable. WP:WAX about Natalie and Russell is not an argument. --Slashme (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but another contestant from the previous season of Survivor, James Thomas, Jr., has an article. Since he and Clouser are both known for being Survivor contestants, why isn't Thomas's article on the list for deletion? Clouser is more notable than Thomas; he owns a business, while Thomas does not. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Main difference - JT won the programme, winning notability with it. Same goes for all other winners in the past and future :) (Kyleofark (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Keep this article. He is obviously popular with the public because he was in the top 3 for fan favorite, and many people seem to like him.  He's very memorable from the last half of the show since he was one challenge away from winning the entire thing.  True Survivor fans will remember him.  His clothing line presents a good image, and it deserves to be recognized.  Keep the article.  --SMSstopper0913 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. He simply isnt notable enough at all. He just happens to be a man who has a buisness, and did well on a reality show. He didnt win the show, and wasnt particularly prominent in it until the two-three episodes in it anyway. And his buisness isnt particularly notable anyway. Its not like people are likely to search wiki for an article on it. I liked Brett on Survior, but there are far far more notable than people with him with no article. Sorry (Kyleofark (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep. I believe that since he was such a large threat to the outcome of the game, people are very likely to search Wikipedia for the article on him. If there is a "demand" for an article, then we should provide everyone with the opportunity to find it. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of Survivor contestants have useless articles. When was the last time you looked at Kim Mullen from Palau, Misty Giles from Exile Island, or Candace Smith from Tocantins?  Probably never.  They went out extremely early in the game, but have articles simply because they are pageant winners.  Other people that went out early in their season and still have articles--Hunter Ellis from Marquesas, Clarence Black from Africa, and Rita Verreos from Fiji, just to name a few.  Brett went all the way to 4th place, was liked by the public, and posed a HUGE threat to a different outcome of the entire season.  To delete this article and keep all of the aforementioned would be absolutely ridiculous.   Brett deserves an article because he owns a business, he will be well remembered by fans as he is obviously popular, and he could have drastically changed the season with one win.  KEEP THIS ARTICLE.  --SMSstopper0913 (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Rubbish.  Brett was pivotal in the most important episodes of the show, watched by tens of millions and all attention was on him.  True, he was in the background early on, due to the editing controls of the Survivor producers, and in remaining on the sidelines no doubt kept himself safe for two thirds of the game.  However, when he became the target and was under immense pressure he equipped himself admirably winning three immunity challenges in a row and was extraordinarily close to winning the final one, the loss of which caused his downfall.  There have been many testaments to his achievements on the show and his having been voted among the top three contestants, not the least of which in the Huffington Post, published December 21. Link is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-russnow/emsurvivorem-finalist-rus_b_398966.html.  As to his future fame and achievements, that remains to be seen, but it should be noted that there are many, many entrants with pages on Wikipedia of questionable renown.  The point should mainly be that if there is significant interest in researching a subject, Wikipedia should provide the opportunity to provide a result.  Brett Clouser meets such a determining factor and a page devoted to him should be retained.Andymickey (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Andymickey (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)  comment added by Andymickey (talk • contribs) 02:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Other people have articles" is not grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. If those people don't deserve articles either, they should also be nominated for deletion.  I've taken the liberty of doing that in a few cases where I thought it was warranted. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * However, Brett Clouser is clearly a point of public interest; he has thousands of followers on Twitter alone. Plus, that you have singled out a "by the way" point in my statement without addressing the more pertinent points considerably lessens, to my mind, the weight of your argument.  You seem to have a problem with people who come to celebrity by means you don't consider significant.  Would you have deleted a page on Susan Boyle several months ago, as simply a runner-up on a British Game show until she proved herself as is currently the case with her smash selling album six months later?  I don't know what sort of power you hold over an article put forth on Wikipedia or whether you have any such authority, but it leads me as a professional screenwriter and journalist to wonder whether I (or others) should waste the time to do so in the future if it can be so capriciously overturned by people with odd pseudonyms.Andymickey (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 16:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Andymickey. On the contrary to Bueller 007's comment above, Wikipedia clearly states how notable Brett Clouser is. I have compiled a direct quote from Notability (people) to show grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is explicitly stated that if "the person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one", they are notable. In addition, if "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", they are recognized as having a notable characteristic. The examples that pertain to Mr. Clouser are that he has been nominated for a notable award or honor—the "Sprint Player of the Season" Award. He also "made a widely recognized contribution" that was "part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", that is, Survivor history. He was definitely "widely recognized" for the large threat he was to the other contestants and the strong game that he played, which was even acknowledged by host Jeff Probst. These are definitely grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia and prove that the article should remain. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. I don't care how many words editors spend stating that this person is a big deal; I see no reliable sources arguing that this person matters one way or another. Untitled, perhaps you should have a look at WP:N and WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Survivor: Samoa. WP:ONEEVENT. Google search for "Brett Clouser - Survivor" finds almost nothing. Pburka (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (and, as abiove, redirect to Survivor: Samoa). Although Notability (Reality Television participants) has not received universal approval, I find it a useful guideline and Mr. Clouser doesn't meet it, nor is he notable for any other reason.  And, for the record, "Sprint Player of the Season" is NOT a notable award or honour; the criteria for voting don't contain anything connected with expertise.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP I'm a little confused about the difference between the two sections in this discussion. By this I mean this section (where we have been asked to post) says "Relisted," but if it hadn't been listed how would we have continued to find Brett Clouser?
 * Keep. Brett's more notable than others that have articles.  He has his own company and participated in one of the most popular reality shows to date.  He almost changed the outcome of the game, and fans will remember him.  He is popular with the fans, almost winning the Player of the Season Award.  Keep it.  Give the guy some credit.  SMSstopper0913 (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, to the point and directed to Pburka's search on Google for Brett Clouser, where he/she finds "almost nothing," I don't know which version of Google he/she uses. Perhaps it's an old Beta Version or one dedicated to some South Pacific Atoll. The Google I use, i.e. google.com, has pages and pages of search results for Brett Clouser, whether Brett Clouser alone or with the hyphenated Survivor add-on.

There seems to be some fanatical dismay exercised by a few of you who keep posting these diatribes as to who is worthy of Wikipedia and who is not. Wikipedia is a search tool for information on people, subjects or history, and like the Internet should cater to providing answers for people who ask them. If you're not interested in Brett Clouser don't type in his name, but why deprive those who are curious (even if of a momentary nature) to learn a little bit more about him? How does it hurt? Is someone more notable being deprived space on Wikipedia? This engine is not the Encyclopedia Britannica or Webster's Dictionary, where it is necessary for space constraints to limit the inclusion to those people or subjects of major note.

Anyone who makes it to a top-ten show that attracts tens of millions of viewers, considering the tens of thousands who attempt to be a player in the game, has accomplished something that most have not. To have lasted until the very final show in a brave and steadfast show of will and nerves against those who wanted to vote him off is an attribute that should be admired. And only by some bad luck at the end was he voted out of the contest, which most people (including the jury) admitted he otherwise would have won. These are the things that have made him a curiosity and why there are pages of references to him on Google, not to mention the thousands who have chosen to follow him on Twitter, etc. I'm not saying that Brett Clouser will definitely be celebrated over the long haul, but for the moment a lot of people are searching his name and expect results, and that's what Wikipedia is for.Andymickey (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched for Brett Clouser without Survivor (-survivor). Nearly every reference to Brett Clouser on the web is in reference to him being on Survivor: Samoa. He has no notability outside of the show. Anyone looking for info about him once this is deleted will be directed to our Survivor: Samoa article, or they can go to IMDB, or they can look him up on the official Survivor website. Wikipedia is not Google -- people can (and will) find him elsewhere. Pburka (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Except, Pburka, you specifically wrote just above, "Google search for "Brett Clouser - Survivor" finds almost nothing." I didn't make it up.  But to your argument and suggestion that if people type in Brett Clouser they will be directed to your article, this seems to be a campaign to get more people to read your article.  If they didn't know specifically about the "name" Brett Clouser, as opposed to the "name" Survivor-Samoa there would be no linkage issue at all.  Plus, if they continue to type in his name it would appear that you are in a minority who believe no one is interested in his persona.  Once again, you and a couple of others have created some fantasy notion that Wikipedia belongs to only those who you find notable.  You trivialize and cheapen Google, IMDB and other database sites as if it's okay for them to include Brett and other "nobodies," but not the holy Wikipedia.  This is patent nonsense.  If there is interest in Brett Clouser or, for that matter, your real name (I assume it's not pburka) then there should be a reference article on Wikipedia to explain whom he is.  That's the service Wikipedia performs for the masses and what makes it singularly special.  Simple as that.  KEEP THIS ARTICLE or you open a Pandora's box of potential deletion controversies that will keep the Wikipedia Gods who control this thing a lot busier than they perhaps want to be.Andymickey (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andymickey, please leave soapboxing and conspiracy theories about "holy Wikipedia" out of this. You could have a look at WP:RS and if, as you seem to claim somewhere in your lengthy diatribes, there is such a plethora of reliable sources that discuss the subject in-depth, you could consider adding some of them to the article or even linking to them here. So far, all you've done is talk about how much there is, but you haven't shown any proof. "Holy Wikipedia" works that way: you prove a subject's notability by giving references to reliable sources. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've rarely seen so much whinging. As Drmies says, make with some evidence that he's notable for some reason outside three or four episodes of a TV show that is only approximately 20th in TV rankings. This is an encyclopedia.  It may be hard for you to understand, but not every topic or person belongs in an encyclopedia. "...or you open a Pandora's box of potential deletion controversies that will keep the Wikipedia Gods who control this thing a lot busier than they perhaps want to be."  Good.  By now Wikipedia is so well established that one of the biggest problems is keeping unnecessary articles OUT, and there's lots of worthless crap in Wikipedia as it is.  However, it seems unlikely that this deletion will spur some kind of mass attack on worthless articles, because—as most people commenting on this thread have noted—Brett Clouser is not notable, and the deletion of his article will go unnoticed by all but two or three people. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bueller, it's intriguing that your terming of "most" people is rather reaching, inasmuch as I see seven (7) people against keeping the article and three (3) voices in the pro column, neither number a vast universe of Wikipedia users. However, before you respond to what your group usually prefers to respond, (i.e. a miniscule point rather than the main argument) I'll grant you that there are more of the small in number against than those voices for keeping the article.  The key question is whose argument is better?  Re Drmies' comment that there were no links, I did link a Huffington Post article that lauds Brett's efforts.  Here's an article and video interview in Reality TV Magazine: http://realitytvmagazine.sheknows.com/blog/2010/01/02/survivor-samoa-bretts-quirky-personality/.  Googling his name produces pages and pages of Internet links.  Yes, they refer to his participation on Survivor, but it was deemed important enough that scores of different websites thought to include it.  I also referred to the thousands who follow him on Twitter, which you are free to verify yourself.  My main question, and perhaps one of you can answer, is who ultimately decides whether or not to delete this article?  If it is not any of you folks then I prefer to let my previous arguments about Brett Clouser's significant participation in a top ten (not twenty) show (depending on the Nielsen Ratings that week) watched by tens of millions of people, in which he was voted one of the top 3 favorites, speak for themselves.  Can someone please tell me what the actual process is and who ultimately says yay or nay?Andymickey (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so you got one link to an article on Huffington Post, which is a blog. The rest is all talk. You really should have a look at WP:N, and then you should ask yourself what the difference is between an encyclopedia and a gossip site. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A blog? Excuse me, but The Huffington Post is an oft-quoted news organization, contributed to and by world famous and/or experienced professionals who are cleared by Huff Post before they may publish.  Plus, the site is often referenced on CNN, NBC and many major news outlets.  Hardly an obscure source of "all talk," which might better describe you and like-minded colleagues here.Andymickey (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the information you're requesting will be found at Deletion policy, and you may also find the following paragraphs about WP:Deletion review to be useful. Accounting4Taste: talk 00:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing. Bueller says "one of the biggest problems is keeping unnecessary articles out."  Can you please explain how an article you deem "unnecessary" affects the placement of future "necessary" articles?  Is there a Gigabyte limit to Wikipedia, wherein articles you'd prefer to see in Wikipedia will somehow be tossed aside because of frivolous inclusions?  Otherwise, why do you care so much about an article that will be seen by people who choose to see it and not by people who don't, as you say, find Brett Clouser notable?  What is the rationale for these hysterical rantings?  I really don't get it.Andymickey (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The information you're requesting here is found at this link. Accounting4Taste: talk 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you want to change the definition of notability with respect to the notability of reality programme contestants, that is done in the same way that all the other guidelines with respect to notability have been created, debated and changed over the years of Wikipedia's existence.  You start by proposing a guideline, such as the failed one at REALITY, which begins a discussion, which may or may not lead to a change in the definition depending on the accumulated views of everyone who comments.  That one failed to achieve consensus, which left us with the status quo.  If you'd care to devote some time and effort to changing the guidelines, your efforts would be very welcome; you might even find sufficient support for your point of view that you'll be able to create a new guideline.  But unless it takes into account Wikipedia's existing policies, such as the very basic one about notability, you're unlikely to gain any support from the Wikipedia community, just as you're learning here.  You may find an examination of WP:Why was my article deleted? to be relevant, and this introductory article makes clear the principles that are being articulated above, including the assertion that notability is an absolutely crucial element of all Wikipedia articles.  If you want help in learning how Wikipedia creates and assesses its guidelines, feel free to leave me a note.  Best of luck with your efforts.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Referencing your comment, Accounting4Taste, I tried to write you personally by clicking on the link, but was directed to another page itself (unless you wanted me to leave a note here -- not clear on that). But in the event that you see this response here, I'm still not sure who and how many are involved in agreeing with any of us here, re the keeping or deletion of an article.  I did click on the links you listed, but it is overwhelming to process the various possibilities and it would be nice to have my query answered with a simplified response.  I see that on your page you are an administrator.  Is it your decision alone or do you consult with others?  Regarding your comment that, based upon the existing policies, I am "unlikely to gain any support from the Wikipedia, just as you're learning here," seven people (including yourself) is hardly a torrent of disapproving Wikipedia users.  Whereas a case could be made that 30% of those who wish to keep the article is a significant enough minority to keep things as they are.  The word "notability" is, after all, quite subjective (as we are seeing).  I understand that there may be a limit (re the Wikipedia server) and you want to keep the frivolous out.  But it would appear that the comments herein and the platform on which Brett Clouser participated would be enough to put this matter to rest.  It's not as if we're talking about the winner of a spelling bee in an Omaha junior high school.Andymickey (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to have been more clear; you can leave me a note by clicking on the word "talk" in my signature. Since my response will have little or nothing to do with this discussion, I'll respond on your talk page, found at User talk:Andymickey and will watch for your response there.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Bueller 007's comment above."'I've rarely seen so much whinging. This is an encyclopedia. It may be hard for you to understand, but not every topic or person belongs in an encyclopedia.'"Yes, that is true, but Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia. It is not like Encyclopedia Britannica at all. Wikipedia is a work in progress. It is unlike any encyclopedia that ever came before it, and very likely unlike any that will come in the future. It is a collaborative project, used by the same people who contribute to it. So therefore, if the people who make Wikipedia the way it is are interested in a subject, then we should provide them a chance to find information on it. That is what Wikipedia is all about. Why would anyone want to take this away from them? Is there a limit to the number of articles that Wikipedia holds? If we've already got over 3 million, what difference will one article (that is much more deserving than some two-sentence stubs on Wikipedia) make? It will make a difference to those who search for him looking for information. Quite frankly, I see absolutely no reason for us to be arguing over this. The public is interested, so we provide them with the opportunity. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Untitled, WP is not supposed to be a catalog of every fact in the world. There are standards here, and notability is an important concept. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, "Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge". —Untitledmind72 (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the same thing. That my hands are cold right now is in no way notable, let alone verifiable by someone besides me. Citing the rest of that sentence easily proves that point. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument has been covered off at WP:EVERYTHING; I recommend it to your attention. For better or worse, Wikipedia has chosen to restrict itself to certain categories of topics; notable ones.  It's certainly within the boundaries of discussion as to whether a particular topic is notable or not, but the restriction itself is not up for discussion.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for biting the newcomers, everyone. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since your first contribution was in April, 2008, I fail to see how that comment applies in this instance.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. To me, he was on a TV show, therefore falls under WP:ENT, which he fails. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2010 (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.