Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. P. Calderon (4th nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

J.P. Calderon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Calderon has very little notability, even on Survivor (I don't even remember him). He played volleyball in college, participated on a popular game show, posed for a magazine, and models for an agency. None of these things by themselves constitute enough notability for the encyclopedia. He hasn't had a significant impact in any of these areas. He's just another guy with a successful career. His article needs to go very quickly.Survivorfan1995 (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 3.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 08:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, many sources exist and he has been interviewed a dozen times. Getting media coverage over many years should just about be enough. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. All but one of the sources are clearly WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful in establishing notability.  The one seeming exception is the Windy City Media Group article but on closer reading, it's clearly interview, not an independent article.  It basically only repeats the subject's own words verbatim and contains essentially nothing of the author's own thoughts necessary to make it WP:SECONDARY, meaning it's still primary and still unhelpful in establishing notability.  Googling turned up nothing else that seemed helpful.  Msnicki (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Calderon's announcement that he was gay caused a media buzz which cemented his notability. He was the cover story of Instinct magazine in February 2007. Yahoo News reported on the Instinct magazine revelation. Edge Los Angeles also reported on the Instinct magazine feature. Of course, the gay media were much more interested in this story! Gay South Florida (a part of the Miami Herald) reported on the gay announcement in a story taken from Towleroad.com. Here's the Towleroad piece. Windy City Media Group published a piece on him. Oh La La magazine published an interview. Edge Boston republished a piece taken from The Dallas Voice. BE magazine published a biography and interview. Of course, CBS has a biography. Instinct magazine continues to report on his life as late as October 2013. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * CBS is obviously reliable, but it's not WP:INDEPENDENT. Interviews may also be reliable but unless the interviewer offer his own thoughts – which is rare in interview pieces generally and does not appear in any of the intervews offered here – they're WP:PRIMARY.  The Gay South Florida mention is just that, a mention, and little more than a link Instinct magazine's photo shoot.  The rest just don't appear to me to clear the bar as WP:RELIABLE.  It doesn't appear to me that Edge Boston, Edge Los Angeles (note the redlinks) and Instinct magazine have the required established reputations for fact-checking and editorial control to qualify as reliable sources.  To me, they look more like simple tabloids.  The only article I think might qualify is the Windy City Media article and even that seems weak to me insofar as it appears to a blog post, not an editorially-reviewed article.   Msnicki (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * keep per GNG. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: this was one of 7 drive by comments all with the same comment.      -  Gloss  •  talk  16:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * then, keep per Binksternet's very well presented arguments. see ad hominem. Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think Binksternet has presented the case very well indeed, and can't really add any more to what they say. Mabalu (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, are we missing a 3rd previous nomination for this article? It says this is nomination no 4.... Mabalu (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, Articles for deletion/J. P. Calderon, found it. Mabalu (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2014 (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.