Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kid Nation participants


 * 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. Although the !vote count was rather close, the arguments for deletion were countered and overridden to my satisfaction by valid counter-arguments that were solidly based on the consensus formed in other related debates, the article talk pages, and the relevant polcies and guidelines referenced herein. I really liked (but did not rely upon) the 7-day recap... that's a neat idea. JERRY talk contribs 03:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Kid Nation participants

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

List includes personal information identifying 40 minors, ages 9-14. Each child is said to be notable as a contestant in Kid Nation reality show currently running on CBS, but this assertion is directly challenged by WP:BLP1E. This list is sourced exclusively to a promotional website set up by CBS, with the occasional listing at IMDB thrown in for good measure. There are no secondary sources. Secondary sources are used to back up trivial claims like winning spelling bees or competing in local beauty pageants. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * [Added here later, after some of the below comment(s) entered: Related AfD for group of individual participant articles, closed as redirect to Kid Nation: Articles_for_deletion/Guylan_Qudsieh --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)]


 * Delete per above statement.--DerRichter (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the policy linked applies to single people. This article identifies a group, and is well sourced. Lambton T/C 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is essentially a collection of articles on individual people. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 *  Merge  Adjusting opinion to Keep and Merge with further recommendations; see comments under VigilancePrime's response - I don't see why a lot of this info couldn't be incorporated into the table, listing all the participants, on the main Kid Nation article. But there's no need for a whole other page. In addition, should the show be picked up for a second (or more) season, the table (or the info in it) could be split out. Until then, I still say merge. Duncan1800 (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Add-on note. I'm adding some detail to my delete !vote, because my use of "per nom" was challenged in a comment below. I used that phrase because the nominator's statement covered the bases.  But to make it clear -  I support deletion because the show's participants are not sufficiently WP:Notable and the information about them is not WP:Verifiable, in that it comes from promotional materials by CBS mostly, with a bit of IMDb, a marginal quality source in general. The TV show is what got the press coverage, not the individual participants. The TV show is notable, the participants are not.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The BLP argument for deletion is faulty. WP:BLP1E does not prohibit articles about TV stars. The network TV series had these individuals as its stars. Without their on-screen activities, there would have been no show. There was multiple coverage of the cast collectively and of some members individually, in reliable sources other than those discussed above. The show is notable and the cast is an important part, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The entire article could be merged to the article about the show, but I see nothing wrong with having it as a stand-alone article, which is preferable to having individual stub articles about each cast member. Edison (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy KEEP - This is particularly straightforward. Here is why.
 * "List includes personal information identifying 40 minors, ages 9-14."
 * Age is irrelevant. If it were, we wouldn't have articles on Emma Watson, Dakota Fanning, or Hilary Duff when they were young, but the all did. Age is irrelevant. We have articles today on all ages, such as Brenna Tosh, Bronwyn Tosh, and Kara and Shelby Hoffman. Additionally, there is nothing personally identifying that is not available elsewhere, as indicated in the sources and references.
 * "Each child is said to be notable as a contestant in Kid Nation reality show currently running on CBS, but this assertion is directly challenged by WP:BLP1E."
 * As has been pointed out, WP:BLP1E specifically aplies to articles on individual people. From WP:BLP1E: "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person."
 * "This list is sourced exclusively to a promotional website set up by CBS, with the occasional listing at IMDB thrown in for good measure. There are no secondary sources."
 * This is an error of fact. The references include CBS, IMDB, news sites in Texas, CBS Primetime news, an orienteering site, pageant sites, and many others.
 * (edit conflict) "Secondary sources are used to back up trivial claims like winning spelling bees or competing in local beauty pageants."
 * True that the secondary sources are used to back up additional, non-KN statements. How is this information "trivial"? Consider, randomly, Katee Sackhoff: "participated in swimming and ballet until her right knee was injured, which led her to begin practicing yoga, which she continues today." That is a sourced, "trivial" statement. Consider, randomly, Sean Connery: "A football fan, he is rumoured to be a supporter of Rangers F.C". That is a sourced, "trivial" statement. How about, not randomly, Jimmy Wales: "He attempts to use his mobile phone in Europe sparingly because of the high rates charged." Trivial? Absolutely. Sourced? Absolutely. Legitimate content? Absolutely.
 * (edit conflict) "This is essentially a collection of articles on individual people."
 * And what is the policy problem with that? There is none. In fact, it is because of policy that this article exists as it does.
 * As Lambton said, "Keep, as the policy linked applies to single people. This article identifies a group, and is well sourced."
 * Absolutely correct. The policy must be applied appropriately.
 * As Duncan1800 said, "Merge - I don't see why a lot of this info couldn't be incorporated into the table, listing all the participants, on the main Kid Nation article. But there's no need for a whole other page. In addition, should the show be picked up for a second (or more) season, the table (or the info in it) could be split out. Until then, I still say merge."
 * This information was actually extracted from this article long ago to prevent that page from being too large. There was an AfD of individual pages that resulted in those pages being merged together into this article (as the article's talk page clearly mentions). The main Kid Nation page already has two large tables, and another one would make that page even more unwieldy.
 * As Jack-A Roe said, "Delete per nom."
 * See WP:PERNOM. Specifically, "adding nothing but a statement in support of the nominator may not contribute significantly to the conclusion" and "Also, this response should not be used to hide a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position".
 * Cherry picked essay quote. - that quote is from an essay, not a guideline, and, it's cherry picked.  The same essay paragraph states this:
 * "In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient."
 * Someone below wrote "per VigilancePrime." as their reason for their "keep" vote - should that person's vote be ignored because they did not add arguments to what you wrote?  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yes. The force of weight is in the rationale and not the "vote". There is still no policy reason to delete the article. That was the point. And yes, it is only an essay, which is why I said "see" rather than "violates" or somesuch. I recognize that it is an essay and only provides advice or comment. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (part 1)
 * [interrupted original comment by User:VigilancePrime  continues here]
 * (edit conflict) As Edison said, "Keep The BLP argument for deletion is faulty. WP:BLP1E does not prohibit articles about TV stars. The network TV series had these individuals as its stars. Without their on-screen activities, there would have been no show. There was multiple coverage of the cast collectively and of some members individually, in reliable sources other than those discussed above. The show is notable and the cast is an important part, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The entire article could be merged to the article about the show, but I see nothing wrong with having it as a stand-alone article, which is preferable to having individual stub articles about each cast member."
 * Absolutely correct. The policy cited in the deletion nomination simply does not apply to this article.
 * Finally, a few side notes. This page is used as one of the examples on the Other stuff exists page to show how every participant in a TV show should not have their own page.
 * This page has had and (assumptively) continues to have consensus for being a collective page rather than individual pages. Some of the kids have enough notability to be apart from the KN page, but not necessarily enough for their own individual page. This page is long already, but has sourced, accurate information, and would vastly increase the size of the KN page were it to be merged there.
 * This page was designed exactly to prevent AfD issues in the same manner that List of Survivor contestants was created. This is a good solution to notability concerns about individuals and groups their total notability together, meeting (however minimally) WP:N and the sources, while perhaps minimal, meet WP:RS and WP:V easily.
 * In conclusion, I believe that this was absolutely a good faith nomination, but very much misdirected. The policy reasons for deleting this article simply do not exist and the notability and precedent reasons for keeping the article are quite evident.
 * VigilancePrime (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC) :-)
 * and here I was trying to have a few days of wikibreak... but the last _fD ended before I was given a chance to contribute, so I didn't feel I could wait any longer...
 * Changing opinion to Keep and Merge. I apologize for not seeing that on the talk page - I was looking more at the article(s). If you already feel the main article is unwieldy with the current table, it's only going to get worse when you add another one for season 2. I would then suggest that the table be moved over instead and sized to incorporate the bio details, so that those interested in more specific information about individual cast members won't get bogged down unnecessarily.
 * Kid Nation is perhaps unique as a reality show in that there really are a lot of people to keep track of. I don't think there's an easy solution here; I'm just calling it as I see it. Duncan1800 (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep & Comment There's no reason or plan at the moment to expand the Kid Nation article if and when there's another season. Looking at the articles in this category. Many of them are lists of participants from a single season. Also, since much of what is in this article is about what the kids did on the show, then this is more like a List of characters from TV show, like List of characters in Heroes. The reason why there would be a separate list for each season of a reality TV show is that, unlike a regular show like "Heroes", the characters don't change completely from one season to the next. For An Angel (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete None of these are notable, one event, keep them in the main show article and only those that actually win or something Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "win or something"? This wasn't a reality show like Survivor or Big Brother where the person who makes it to the end is the "winner". The only people who left early, left on their own (they weren't voted out) because they wanted to go home. So, in a sense they were all "winners". For An Angel (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per VigilancePrime. Maxamegalon2000 17:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Given the existence of the CBSNews site, and IMdB, concerns about privacy are misplaced. The material there must have been approved by the CBS lawyers and the families. Whether this sort of show is a good idea is not our concern. DGG (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If CBS is displaying the bio info, then I might change my vote to keep, but when I checked that link, I found this text where the individual kid's bios were supposed to be: "This widget has been disabled, for more information on Kid Nation, please visit http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation" - that page also has its bio widget disabled.  Could be a technical glitch, or other reasons, but the result was there was no way to view the info at this time stamp.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems like the short cut links that used to appear at the bottom or the right hand side of the Kid Nation site on CBS.com (I'm guessing that's what they called the "widget") have been disabled but you can still access each kid's bio from the toolbar at the top under "Kids" (for ex. here's Alex's bio. Also, the CBS links in the List of Kid Nation participants for each kid link directly to their bio's and those still work. For An Angel (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I checked that. The bios on CBS do not reveal personally identifying information about the kids.  CBS does not include the kids' last names and does not tell where they live.  The last names and some other personally identifying information in the article appears to be taken from the IMDb website, and, even there, they tell where the children were born, not where they live.  These are children on a reality show.  Now they're considered actors in that they have representation by an agency, but they are not part of a sophisticated career machine like child actors usually are with built-in privacy protections as part of their career planning.  If the article is kept, all personally identifying information should be removed, especially last name and city of residence.  If that is not done, the article should be deleted. I will consider annotating my !vote to indicate this.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The cities listed are not the cities where they currently live, they are the cities that they were born in. As you said, the cities in the article were "taken from the IMDb website, and, even there, they tell where the children were born, not where they live." Doesn't that sound like a bit of a contradiction? Obviously, if the cities in the article were taken from IMDB, and IMDB only tells where they were born, then the cities in the article are not their cities of residence. Their last names as well, were taken from IMDB. And you'll notice that not all of the kids in this list show their last names. Only the ones that had their last names listed IMDB have them here too. Since IMDB doesn't include the last names of all the kids, I think it's safe to assume that only the ones that wanted them made public are the ones that are public. Why should any information be removed if it's also found on CBS.com or IMDB? For An Angel (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * After further consideration, I don't see a reason to change my delete !vote. The actors on the show do not meet WP:N or WP:V sufficiently to have an article.  The list should be merged in to the article about the show, and should only include information that has solid WP:RS supporting.  Personally identifying info that is not reliably sourced per WP:V should be omitted, and IMDb is not a reliable source for that, they don't do fact-checking other than on the most important elements; much of their content is written by fans.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable group. The list also supports the article well.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    21:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or remove personal identifying info re any minor without their own article. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WHY should we remove any personal identifying info re any minor without their own article? Your welcome, For An Angel (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Squeak, is there a policy reason for removing personal information from that article, or for removing the article altogether? If so, sure we can trim the article. But there isn't, right? And what sort of precedent does that set? Remove all articles on all children? The simple fact is that Wikipedia does nothing in the way of personally identifying that the referenced sites don't already do. Speedy Keep as there is no policy reason whatsoever to delete, and WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N (though minimally) are all satisfactorily met. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (part 2)
 * (Side note, with the Squeak reasoning, I could see a bunch of individual articles cropping up and causing even more AfD's and ultimately another "merge" consensus, which would land us right back where we are, at the best solution, where the consensus was and continues to be.)


 * Delete for lack of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Most of these kids are essentially non-notable: if each had an article to themselves, almost all of them would (rightly) be speedily deleted. Combining them into one long list doesn't make its individual components any more notable. The show Kid Nation is notable; but virtually all of its contestants are not. So: delete. Terraxos (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, most of these kids are not notable enough to have their own articles, and you're right too about the fact that combining all of them into one long list doesn't make any of them more notable. At one time there were seven separate articles on individual participants and it was decided at an AfD that none of them were notable enough to keep their own articles. They were all merged and redirected into this List. Later, when more sources were found, Laurel's article was recreated and survived another AfD. But we're not arguing here about the notability of any one of them in particular. We're arguing about a List of all 40 participants, and logically speaking, you should be able to see that a list of 40 people will have an inherent notability of 40 times the inherent notability of the average person on that list. It was already decided that one of them (Laurel) is notable enough by herself to have her own article, so don't you think that the notability of all 40 participants combined will be enough for their own article? You said, "The show Kid Nation is notable; but virtually all of its contestants are not", but that is very misleading because when you say "all" you really mean "each". The participants as a whole are virtually as notable as the show itself because without them the show would be nothing. For An Angel (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The kids are not notable as individuals or as a group, they're just contestants on a reality show.  The Kid Nation article already has a section for the participants, there is no reason to have a separate article about them. If any of the kids is notable enough to have a separate article because they have references for that, that would be a different question.  But as a group they can fit easily in the main article about the show.  It doesn't make sense to have a separate article about kids that don't have references making them notable.   --Linda (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's use that same logic and delete List of Survivor contestants and all other similar lists. No, the contestants as a groups are plenty notable. See all the above policy-based comments... especially those referring to the meeting of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. This should be a really simple thing... VigilancePrime (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the statement about " List of Survivor contestants and all other similar lists" ... that has nothing to do with this article.  Maybe those other lists meet WP:N and WP:V; this one does not.  WP:Other stuff exists, linked in that same comment, is not a basis for keeping a page; each topic must stand on its own and meet policy requirements.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * CBS is absolutely a reliable source.
 * OSE is precedent. The point is that Wikipedia has set precedent for this sort of article. Like consensus, precedent can change, yes. Correct that OSE is not a basis for keeping a page; OSE shows consistency across the Wikipedia project, in much the same way the "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" gives common outcomes in order to enhance overall discussion and consistency.
 * I don't know where the IMDB is not reliable comes from as it has always been seen as a good source in articles I've seen. Granted, I have not seen "most" articles, but I don't know I;ve ever heard of IMDB being challenged like that before.
 * That's all. The base argument seems to be "They are, as a group, notable" versus "they are not, even as a group, notable". Fair enough. I and some believe that their grouped, total notability is clear and apparent. Others believe that their notability together is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Personally, I think that looking through Wikipedia pages of people (stubs in particular) will demonstrate that the standard for inclusion is really, really low. Others may respond by saying that comparing pages is inappropriate (which is a poor, attention-diverting argument) or that the other pages ought also be AfD'd (which I would in many cases support). There seems a pretty even numerical split on this issue, but I don't think the argument to delete is strong enough to overcome the default-to-keep mentality that Wikipedia (usually) has. At worst, I could see a "keep as no consensus" finding.
 * That's all. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC) :-)
 * The list doesn't satisfy either WP:N or WP:V. All the rest are details that don't rise to the level of those policies, though of course, WP:Consensus is policy as well and will determine the result.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your original phrasing, "I don't find the list satisfies..." is more accurate. I put my beliefs as my beliefs, and did the same for the opposition. I think you should/could do the same. We disagree, and we both feel justified. I don't think either of us is particularly "wrong", just have different interpretations and threshholds (and motivations). The point is, what I feel is what I feel and what you feel is what you feel and we're both justified in those. Ultimately, I truly believe that this will end with no concensus. That's a default keep, but never really answers the questions and concerns raised by either of us. Pretty unsatisfying for us both, huh? VigilancePrime (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC) :-)
 * After reading through your comments, Jack-A-Roe, I don't see where you are providing any arguments. All you are doing is stating your opinions as if they are facts. You've said over and over, "The actors on the show do not meet WP:N or WP:V sufficiently to have an article." That's YOUR opinion, we disagree. Explain WHY they do not meet those requirements. We've compared it other articles that have relatively similar notability and you've said other articles are irrelevant. They are not irrelevant. Notability is relative and if the subject of this article is at least as notable as most of the ones in the categories Lists of actors by television series or Lists of television characters or the most obvious comparison Lists of reality show participants then the only honest reason why you would still want this article deleted is because youi just don't like it. For An Angel (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - lists of reality show contestants seem pretty routine. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe on obsessive fansites, but I've yet to find any in a dead-tree reference source. No offense meant to the contributors who work on these articles, I realize that such dismissal may come off as a harsh value judgment. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - minors and not famous. To comment on "WP:BLP1E does not prohibit articles about TV stars" above, no it does not, but kids like these are hardly "stars" whatever else they might be. If they make other programmes or films then just maybe they'll get on WP, but they haven't enough claim to fame in any way yet. --AlisonW (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that they're minors is irrelevant, Wikipedia has many articles on minors. WP:BLP1E irrelevant because it only concerns articles on individual people, and this is an article for a list of 40 people. If they make other programmes or films then just maybe they'll get their OWN article on WP, so until then there is no reason why this list can't exist to compliment the article on the show. There is also an article for List of Kid Nation episodes... is there a question of notability regarding the episodes that is separate from the show itself? Of course not, because without the episodes the show wouldn't exist. And likewise, without the participants, the show would consist of nothing but Jonathan Karsh staring at tumbleweed in Bonanza City. Both of these Lists naturally grew from the main article on Kid Nation until they were split according to WP:SIZE. For An Angel (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can almost smell the ephebiphobia here. Lambton T/C 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're under the impression that several editors hold higher standards when it comes to biographies of children, then you are correct. Parents and legal guardians have varying expectations of privacy for their children, there are real-world reasons to approach this issue carefully. Television appearances should not become an excuse to compile any and all personal details on minors when notability is not well established. Reality show contestants are ephemera. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why don't we delete all the articles in Category:Lists of reality show participants? For An Angel (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, but you should realize that the "all or nothing" argument is a commonly discounted fallacy in deletion discussions. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you should probably stop making statements such as "Reality show contestants are ephemera" implying that all reality show contestants are unworthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia. For An Angel (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ?! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Orphan Page. No pages link to this article, other than Kid Nation and redirects of a few deleted articles about the individual kids (deleted presumably because they were found not notable).   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that now, since all the other deletion arguments have been debunked, the sole remaining argument to delete is that Wikipedia doesn't link to it much? That's the weakest rationale yet. Please tell me you have something more substantial than that, cause that being the only remaining "reason" would qualify for a speedy-keep. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)
 * Also, "redirects of a few deleted articles about the individual kids" is factually in error. Laurel McGoff links to the list and is not a redirect. In point of fact, it already survived an AfD pretty handily. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)
 * My comment does not state anything like what VigilancePrime wrote. I do not consider that the arguments for deletion have been "debunked"; the kids are not notable other than being on that TV show, so they should be part of the TV show article.  If I missed one article that survived group of AfDs and links to this one, this one is still only linked from two pages. That's useful information for this AfD, to note that the page in question is not connected to other articles on Wikipedia.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It sounded, I thought, as a "in that case this is why". The ultimate question is still "they are notable as a group" versus "they are not notable as a group". I accept that "ultimate question". VigilancePrime (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Many similar pages (like List of characters on Zoey 101) that were split off from a main article once it got too big also have few links pointing to them that don't come from the main article. The main article for Kid Nation however has many articles linking to it and the link to List of Kid Nation participants is displayed prominently on that page. Besides, being orphaned has never been a valid reason to delete any article. Even having only two articles link to it is more than the literally thousands of articles that have NO incoming links. Those pages are tagged with an Orphan tag so they can be improved. For An Angel (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is the same as any other list of people bound by a comonality, and the information is all available elsewhere already, in reliable sources -- which means that it's already available to the public, and not just to some specific "in" group. So this article doesn't create some new threat to minors. Any information that's not in reliable sources can and should be removed, but the list itself should be kept. I suspect this is the result of a split from the Kid Nation article when the list became too large, in which case it doesn't necessarily need to meet article notability criteria, just WP:SERIES, or maybe WP:SAL.  Equazcion •✗/C • 22:21, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Seven-Day Recap
In Favor Of DELETE
 * anetode
 * DerRichter
 * Jack-A-Roe
 * Macktheknifeau
 * SqueakBox
 * Terraxos
 * Linda
 * AlisonW

In Favor Of KEEP
 * Lambton
 * Duncan1800 (with merge)
 * Edison
 * VigilancePrime
 * For An Angel
 * Maxa
 * DGG
 * Th e Tr ans hu man ist
 * Phil Sandifer
 *  Equazcion •✗/C

Basic arguments for deletion
 * People in list are non-notable by virtue of WP:BLP1E.
 * Page contains personal information that violates the privacy of minors. WP:NPF
 * Much of this personal information is either unsourced or sourced to unreliable sources. WP:RS, WP:V
 * Contestants are already discussed at the main Kid Nation article, this amounts to an unnecessary laundry list of trivia. WP:TRIV

Basic arguments for keeping
 * WP:BLP1E does not apply to group pages (clearly stated in the policy).
 * Age is irrelevant; we have many articles on minors.
 * Page contains much referenced information available elsewhere and most of the information is not contentious.


 * Note: The above has nothing to do with a vote. It's a peek at consensus. The only reason to remove it is because one fears the truth. We're one week and multiple pages into this; collating data is logical and useful for all readers. If you find the above non-neutral, voice that concern. If you simply don't like the facts that have been expressed thus far, too bad; express new ones. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)
 * I don't understand how one can look at this and say you're imposing "your interpretations on the comments of others". It's just a list of facts with no commentary whatsoever. For An Angel (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor did I. I understand both sides of this and think that I could even argue either one fairly. I don't see the problem with factual summarizations unless one fears the truth. Prior to summarizing this, I had believed that the consensus was toward Keep... turns out it's more of a No Consensus. This will have to default to evaluations of the policies in question. TMOTSI the summary helped me even see this better and should be a standard practice in long-term _fD's. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)


 * NOTE: Unilaterally removing comments from a page like this is generally termed vandalism. "format-wise" is not a good reason to simply delete whole sections of discussion. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. Since the impartial recap above was POV-ed, I adjusted it. I would like to point out that anetode removed the notability part and thus it seems safe to infer that there is no argument made that the list is non-notable. That said, the WP:BLP1E "argument" was summarily debunked (plainly does not apply). There is nothing against pages on minors whatsoever and the so-called "privacy" concerns are total red herring as nothing in the article is personally identifiable that is not available elsewhere. Finally, much of it is sourced and most of it is not contentious, and sourcing policies specifically state that contentious material must be sourced but sourcing is less strict for non-contentious information. Take a look some day at the littany of articles with the Unreferenced tag! Seems to me that the un-neutral-izing of the above summary ultimately serves to give credence to a Keep argument. VigilancePrime (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get too far into this, but lets just say that you are the last person one could expect to frame an impartial recap and you shouldn't be surprised when someone who disagrees with your appraisal corrects the arguments for deletion. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Others felt it was neutral. Can you be specific how it was biased? It was a factual summary. If I missed something, you could have added it, but instead you added new arguments that hadn't even been put forth yet. How is that a summary? You're a little bad-faith-ish in your "you are the last person one could expect to frame an impartial recap". It was totally meant as an impartial recap and it succeeded in that. I didn't even place any comments during that edit. Personally, I thought that the recap worked against my personal belief/desire/viewpoint. Funny that you would be anti-me instead of anti-article. Weird. VigilancePrime (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Count the total number of words in this deletion discussion, now consider how many of them are yours. Sorry, but it is unfair to let you act as your own sounding board. I really want to avoid getting into a tedious argument about personal biases, this is why I merely corrected what I thought was a misrepresentation in your recap. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying "Delete - VP wrote too much"? Much of it was mine, yes, and some others have reiterated those statements. In other words, I got here early and voiced the concerns of many. And that is bad how? (Also, I was quoting a good deal, eh?) Not seeing how word count is relevant... the words themselves are usually more important. Anyway, I stand by the original summary and it's likely outcome. (As opposed to the current one, which lends toward Keep instead. Hey, whatever works.) VigilancePrime (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)


 * Note for closing admin.  User: VigilancePrime  is the creator of the page currently under discussion, following the deletion by AfD of the various individual kids articles based on consensus of non-notability. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note for closing admin. As indicated on the article's talk page, the consensus was clearly to merge. Next poorly-contrived argument? VigilancePrime (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't an argument, it was simply a statement of fact for reference. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. VigilancePrime (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Question for Jack, did you miss the part where the closing admin said, "Whether or not this content is merged to Kid Nation or a future List of Kid Nation participants article is up to editorial discretion. --- RockMFR 02:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)" ? For An Angel (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2008 (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.