Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurel McGoff


 * 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. Tyrenius (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Laurel McGoff

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable person; redirected after Articles for deletion/Guylan Qudsieh but now recreated without any additional sign of notability. While I'm sure the creator will be along to point out that there are many similar articles on Wikipedia, the fact still remains that this person has no notability from sources outside Kid Nation Pak21 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems notable enough. --Pmedema (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the length, the referencing, the various examples... in the grand Wiki scale of notability, Laurel McGoff is hardly on the low end of it. If we're going to go after non-notable articles, let's start with things like fuzzy dice and online wedding instead first.


 * Keep - duh. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was always told that new comments go at the bottom, so I re-arranged this back the way it should be... considering that the above is the order in which comments were left.
 * Comment2 - as has been said: "Comparing reality "stars" to reality "stars"... Laurel has a basic one-page article with five references and three external links. She has been a major player in the Kid Nation] show and appeared in every episode (actually, featured in every episode). Contrasting that with [[Earl Cole, Andria "Dreamz" Herd, and Yau-Man Chan, all from the reality show Survivor: Fiji. Cole has an equally short article with only one reference and no external links (even though he won!), Dreamz has five references and one external link in a slightly larger article (at least enough to not be deemed a stub), and Yau-Man, who has the most descriptive article (and was probably the best of these contestants from the few episodes I caught that season), runs with four references and two external links. So, I wonder, how are any of these three notable and Laurel is not? While each of these Survivor contestants is notable solely for that appearance, Laurel (using her as an example as she is the strongest candidate for a Wiki article of the ones created thus far) has performed in other major productions (not nationally, but locally/regionally). And it's referenced. Really I would think that this article, though still growing and expanding, would serve as the model for Kid Nation individual pages for whoever ends up "deserving" them. Just a thought."
 * Comment3 - Yes, I will be here to say that tons of pages just like this exist. Before anyone starts with OSE, remember that essays are opinions and nothing more. The simple fact is that if we are going to be deleting pages because the subject only has 5, 10, however-many references, only has 3, 5, however-many sections, only demonstrates 2, 4, however-many appearances or performances, that notability is only regional/national/international, or whatever else, we would eliminate half of Wikipedia. Is this our goal?
 * Comment3a - The simple fact is that this article has been very well referenced. It is lengthier than a typical stub. It has more notability than the average stub. It is in accordance with the average reality series contestant. The only reason I can see for the continued attempts at deletion of an article like this is the participant's age; a young person could not possibly be important or notable, right? (The only other option for the illogical deletion attempts is less palatable, so I assume good faith.) Bottom line is that this contestant has performed, is at least regionally notable before Kid Nation, and with Kid Nation is now nationally and perhaps even internationally known. How is that non-notable? VigilancePrime (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with associated Cleanup to List of Kid Nation participants. While notability has been demonstrated, it is primary due to her participation in Kid Nation, not for her other aspects.  I believe that one can achieve a higher quality article by grouping all the notable (outside of KN) participants into a single article (without losing information) than to have separate articles for each notable one.  Until such a time that any of the kids becomes the next Dakota Fanning and that notability exceeds what Kid Nation gives them such that a separate article makes more sense, keeping them all together in one article provides a more consistent approach. --M ASEM  20:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into List of Kid Nation participants. This is not based on Laurel's age. Yes, she got in the newspaper. Yes, she has a page on CBS.com. Yes, she has a page on TV.com. Yes, she was in a local play. Does that establish notability? No. Anything related to CBS is out because it's not independent of the subject. A page on TV.com/IMDB cannot establish notability because it is a trivial mention. Not everyone who is on TV has a Wikipedia page. And finally, the local newspaper and local play are out because, again, it's a list of names. That's a trivial mention. In short, per WP:N, none of the references establish notability. And this is close to a G4 speedy because it isn't substantially changed from the last AfD. Just keep Laurel in List of Kid Nation participants. And, finally, VigilancePrime, we shouldn't go for Fuzzy dice first, and length of an article or number of references isn't necessarily a reason to keep an article.  N F 24 (radio me!) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think it's funny how you seem to be using the same argument that you're telling VigilancePrime not to use. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explicitly states:
 * "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should".
 * In other words, invoking the "other stuff does not exist" argument by saying, "Not everyone who is on TV has a Wikipedia page" is just as bad as using the "other stuff exists" argument. Of course not everyone on TV has a Wikipedia page and not everyone on TV deserves one because not everyone who makes it onto TV becomes famous. We're not saying that Laurel McGoff deserves a Wikipedia article simply because she's been on TV, we're saying that she deserves a Wikipedia article because she's famous, the fact that she gained her fame because she was on TV is not important. I'd say that MOST people who are famous today wouldn't be as famous if there was no such thing as TV. Ospinad (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - well-sourced article, subject meets the notability criteria. Videmus Omnia Talk  22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - as per Pmedema and Videmus Omnia. This one definitely stands on its own. DoubleVibro (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything but Delete - If it's decided again that Laurel still doesn't deserve her own article then there's no reason why all the information there has to be lost since it can just be merged into List of Kid Nation participants. Also, I have to say that I think the reason why her article keeps getting nominating for deletion is because some people are misunderstanding what "independent of the subject" means. Because Laurel has a biography on CBS.com doesn't mean that CBS and Laurel aren't independent of each other anymore than an actor with a page on IMDb isn't independent of IMDb just because he has a page on IMDb. In other words, saying that any fame that Laurel may have gained from being on Kid Nation automatically doesn't count, simply because she was on Kid Nation doesn't make any sense. Laurel is famous mainly because she was on Kid Nation, that's true, but that doesn't fall under "self-published" material simply because Kid Nation wasn't Laurel's creation. Kid Nation was CBS's creation. Besides, there's no rule that says a person needs to gain sufficient notability in at least TWO separate areas before they can be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. If she's done only one thing to make her famous but that one thing was enough to make her well known to millions of people then there's no reason why she still needs to do something else to prove she's famous. Ospinad (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * She doesn't have to be notable for two different things. What I'm saying is that none of the references provided can establish notability per WP:N. All the references are either trivial lists of names or a page on TV.com (which doesn't necessarily prove notability in its own right; it just proves that the subject was on TV and that cannot establish notability) or pages on CBS.com which are disqualified because they are not considered independent from the subject.  N F 24 ( happy holidays! ) 23:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand how someone can be featured prominently in every episode of a TV show that was watched by millions of people every week and still be considered non-notable. Ospinad (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I wonder how many hundreds (or maybe even thousands) of BLP articles more we'd have to worry about if we had article on every reality show contestant. We have many Survivor articles, but every person doesn't need one.  Laurel has some references, but most are somewhat trivial or are CBS.  There is no reason why this can't be merged to the participant list.  Reywas92 Talk 20:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but your so-called analogy is flawed and, in point of fact, only reaffirms the significants of this article. We are not listing an article for every participant. In truth, only 1 in 40, that's 2.5% of participants, and one of the ones who was awarded in the show, and one who was prominently featured in every episode. This is on the scale of a page for the winner of Survivor seasons. As has been pointed out above, many reality show contestants have their own page even if they didn't win. Survivor is a great example. If Survivor averages two contestant pages per season, that's more than 11% of all participants. With your analogy logic, we should have 8-9 articles. We're looking at a single, notable, highly recognizable character in a nationally-televised, well-rated show. That is, by definition, notability. I agree we shouldn't have a page for everyone! Laurel clearly should have her own. In the long run, a couple others probably should as well, maybe. Anyway, I appreciate your reasoning, but that reasoning only lends credence to keeping the article in question. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion may be moot and OBE. User:Pak21's page indicates that he had decided to exit the scene temporarily.  As he is the nominator for AfD, I submit that this article should be removed from the AfD list. DoubleVibro (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. An AfD cannot be speedy closed because the nominator is temporarily inactive. You can read the speedy close criteria at WP:CSK, but in short, they are 1) The nomination is withdrawn or the nomination is to merge, move, or perform another non-deletion-related action 2) The nomination is in bad faith (such as Derek Jeter or Coca-Cola) 3) The nominator is banned 4) The page is a policy or guideline.  N F 24 ( happy holidays! ) 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer this one play out anyway, so that when it's all over and the page is kept, the article will have the "survived AfD" tag. Just a thought... VigilancePrime (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC) :-)
 * Don't get your hopes up yet. Though this article will most likely be kept, remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy and arguments that the closing admin feels invalid can be thrown out. If there are 12 "keep" !votes that are all WP:ILIKEIT but there are two well-thought-out "delete" !votes, the AfD will probably be closed as "delete" or "no consensus". Now I'm not saying that any of the !votes here are ILIKEIT, in fact it appears, again, that the article will be kept.  N F 24 ( happy holidays! ) 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge or weak keep I dislike reality TV and Kid Nation in particular, but given this shows popularity, I think the information should be kept around. As a note, I'm getting 1,720 ghits, which seems low for anything so popular at the moment. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Kid Nation participants. I wasn't on Kid Nation, but I've been on the Honor roll and my name was published, and there are multiple web pages referencing me.  The last four refs are all the CBS Kid Nation site, the first two are simple profiles, and the second two are local news.  This somewhat condenses into three refs.  Anayway, I see absolutely no reason this cannot be merged into the above article.  Reywas92 Talk 23:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Kid Nation participants. The information is good, valuable, and should be kept around, but I don't think that Laurel has enough independent validity to constitute having her own page. 69.236.71.61 (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2007 (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.