Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Lyon (2nd 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   keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Lyon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Wasn't notable as a Survivor contestant alone (see previous AfD). Her death doesn't seem like it should automatically give her notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Until we have rules that say "this coverage counts" and "that coverage doesn't", coverage is coverage. She now has coverage over a long period of time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Actually there are rules that govern what items should be considered as reliable. Beyond that there is a difference between trivial and and non-trivial coverage.   ttonyb  (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It would be easy to dismiss this under the prior deletion and invoking WP:MEMORIAL, but I agree with Peregrine that she acquired notability beyond her Survivor stint, as an activist for breast cancer research. . I note that both People Magazine and Us Magazine describe her as a "celebrity", which trumps my "well, I've never heard of her" card.  I think she'll continue to be notable as a martyr. Mandsford (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment –What would help would be providing reliable sources that specifically discuss her activism. I see a number of references for her Survivor stint and death.  The Obits only briefly mention her as a activist for breast cancer research.  ttonyb  (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- as a Survivor contestant, she didn't have notability outside the show. However what's happened since has granted some individual notability. A merge discussion probably wouldn't be out of the place, but there's absolutely zero reason for the information to be deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Jenn was memorable enough by fans that the entire Survivor community, both past contestants and viewers, has been devastated by her loss.  In addition to being on Survivor, Jenn was a HUGE activist with breast cancer foundations.  Mufka, her death didn't automatically give her notability.  People knew who she was.  Because of her Survivor stint and her immense amount of charity work with breast cancer, she deserves an article as somewhat of a tribute.  There is no reason to delete this article.  SMSstopper0913 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.138.172 (talk)
 * Comment – It would help the reviewing Admin if you would show how this satisfies any of the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:ENT?  ttonyb (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Like others, I believe Jennifer has enough notability, even past her experience on Survivor.  --BignBad (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – It would help the reviewing Admin if you would show specific examples of how she meets either WP:BIO or WP:ENT.  ttonyb (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: Despite my fullest sympathies with cancer victims in general, I cannot see how this particular patient/advocate is any more notable than any of the countless people who engage in the countless cancer fundraisers all around the world. If she actually had created an important foundation or had pioneered a particularly notable type of fundraiser, then sure. But the sources I see do not state anything like this. What they say, basically, is she was a fairly proactive cancer patient. So are lots of folks, frankly. As for the show, she finished in fourth place. Typically (if arbitrarily), people care to notice only first through third: winner, runner-up, and second-runner-up; gold, silver, and bronze. Even being a winner on WP:REALITYTV does not necessarily make one encyclopedia-worthy. Moreover, the encyclopedic worth of such a winner would not automatically be augmented by that winner's having become modestly active in a worthwhile cause, because random cross-categorization (e.g., "Reality TV show cast members who participate in cancer fundraisers") is not an encyclopedic practice. Unless someone can provide a source to demonstrate that she was either a really important activist or an extraordinarily important figure on reality TV, then as much as I hate to say it, this article needs to go. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of third-party coverage and she was also an actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bare Grill (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Listing GHIts does not address the trivial or non-trivial nature of the coverage. A small mention in an article or a short Obit is not non-trival coverage.  In addition, not all of the articles in this are for this person.  Although she may have acted, she does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:ENT.   ttonyb  (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think all that coverage is trivial, prove it. And if you add Survivor to that Google News search, only 8 sources are removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bare Grill (talk • contribs) 23:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – One has only to look at a sample of the articles to see if they are trivial or non-trivial. Please note the burden of evidence falls to the author of the article.  I do not see an adequate number of non-Wikipedia articles in the Wikipedia article's reference section to support notability.   ttonyb  (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So do it. And there is no "author" of the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative website. So how about you collaborate and look through the sources I linked to and help add some to the article and make it better? Unless you're only here to bother people. The fact that the reference section has few sources has absolutely nothing to do with the number of sources that have written about this person. And the current state of an article has nothing whatsoever to do with the notability of the person an article is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bare Grill (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone. Reliable sources in the article are enough. Chutznik (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article contains four sources, all of which are obituaries. And the most that any these obituaries says about her, really, is that she lost on WP:REALITYTV and then lost a battle with cancer, despite having been stronger-than-average in both respects. This makes her, I suppose, a human being who led a rather non-standard life. But how in the world does this make her the appropriate subject of an encyclopedia article? This is, after all, an encyclopedia; it is not a directory of everybody who has had unusual ups and downs in life. If there's an article that cites only obituaries, then what we have here, in a tertiary reference, is a compound obituary. And that would be fine, if the article in question were called Death of Jennifer Lyon--sort of like Death of Michael Jackson or Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. But that's not what the article is called. There's no evidence that her death differed tremendously in its causes or effects from the deaths of countless other cancer victims. And if, as far as the sources are concerned, she didn't do anything particularly notable except, well, die, then a glaring question is begged: Why should there be an article about her life? Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:35, 29 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.