Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shii Ann Huang


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Shii Ann Huang

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

She is just a reality show contestant who has done nothing of note apart from Survivor. Yes, she has been on two seasons, but precedent (and another one) shows that that is not enough. -- Scorpion0422 01:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there some sort of way to determine viewer usage and views of this edit? If literally no one is reading this article, then whatever.  If it is generating traffic, it should stay.   Unless of course you are one of those mindless Shii Ann fan's that can't handle any criticization of her (and there is plenty), you better get used to it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of having any article about anything if it is full of subjective comments by a user with poor referencing skills. That is not encyclopedic. And that said user should be considered a vandal of the article, and the rules of wikipedia in relation to that should be implemented. We all know who I am writing about.


 * My next set of criticism is for Scorpion. You only nominated this article for deletion because of the activities of a troll. Since when do trolls get rewarded for their efforts. And scorpion, you are clearly no implementing the same criteria across the board for nominating articles for deletion when clearly there are plenty of other Survivor contestants that should be nominated for deletion as well on the same grounds that you nominated this one. Yet you've focused on this one scorpion, because of this troll, with his or her subjective views of the person in question, and as such are rewarding this said troll. That is not constructive to wikipedia's standards, it is destructive. If he will be rewarded for his trolling and vandalism of this article, you will be setting a precedent to everyone else that this tactic and antic works, and it will encourage others to act the same toward all other types of articles.


 * As for my opinion: I think Eliza Orlins and James Clements articles should be put back up. Shii Ann's article should stay, but should be kept reliable just like any other article on anything else on this site. And Kathy from Marquesas should have an article placed up. All contestants who have been in more than one season should have an article. That is not how it presently is, but that is the way I suggest it should be. That is the most objective way. Criteria of 'significant' stuff they did outside Survivor is measured subjectively and 'most popular' criteria is even more subjective, unreliable and unencyclopedic. Yeldarb68 (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was going to nominate it for deletion eventually anyway, even had there not been a troll. And please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I will get to those other Survivors eventually, but I don't like to flood the afd process with afds for similar people. You seem to have missed the point of an afd, it is not for criticizing other users, it is for discussing the merits (or lackthereof) of an article. -- Scorpion0422 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the problem isn't Shii Ann's article, Eliza's article or any specific article. It is the fact that there is no clearly defined criteria of what is acceptable and what is not. I suggest before deleting anyone else, the criteria should be defined first. That way, you can implement the criteria more smoothly. Doing it in reverse is nonsensical. And deleting things on the grounds of "Well, Kathy doesn't have an article, so let's delete James. James got deleted so let's delete Eliza. Eliza got deleted so..." So go clearly define what is acceptable. It is far too wishy washy at the moment. That is not encyclopedic, it is chaotic. And furthermore, this talk of getting to other Survivors 'eventually' is hard for me to believe. Why exactly were James, Eliza and Shii-Ann targeted for deletion before the likes of Clay's article? And I am not out to criticize you, I am criticizing the process. How can I say whether or not Shii Ann's article should be deleted where I have absolutely no criteria to judge that by? There should be strict criteria. Kind regards as always, Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is NOT the place to discuss the process; this is the place to talk about whether and why (or why not) THIS ARTICLE ONLY should be deleted or not, that's it. If you have any complaints about policy or guidelines, please indicate your grievances at the appropriate talk pages. MuZemike (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the appropriate talk page to argue that the contestants who were selected by the producers to play a second time are just as noteworthy as the winners? Tell me what talk page exists for me to urge in favor of such? Yeldarb68 (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, no assertion of notability, and while they were a contestant they seem to have done little outside of appearing on Survivor and spinoffs. The precedent for winners of reality shows exists but from reading this article (which I found difficult) she didn't win. The Cleanup and Refs templates have been sitting there for nearly a year, it has had its time, now it must go. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER - mutiple seasons on Survivor probably get her safely into the TV personality box, though it's a close call. Would be nice to have something at WP:OUTCOMES for cases like this one. Townlake (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP2E. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I say keep it up, it seems to generate traffic and is about a TV personality, whether you agree with the person's merits or not. I think Scorpion though made a good point when he said that  it is for discussing the merits (or lackthereof) of an article. When it comes to lack of merits, I can't think of a better example then Shii Ann. Still, if the page is getting views, let it stay. If it isn't then oh well. I mean, you have said you have seen SURVIVOR SUCKS and know what the majority of people think about Shii Ann. Why not let the facts against her stay as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that this user has been adding his personal opinions and views on this person to the point that the page actually had to be protected. No doubt he would love to see it remain so he can continue to have a place for his views. -- Scorpion0422 03:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've stopped doing that once I really GOT what this was about. It is a shame that posting stuff that was directly shown on the show is not good enough to be cited anymore....I mean, most of what I post millions of people saw. Oh well, I personally like it and since I still think you are one of the Shi Ann defenders I have gone up with on other websites, I am laughing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletheduck (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to burst your bubble, but the article is viewed by (on a good day) 50 people per day. So in reality, maybe a hundred people saw. -- Scorpion0422 13:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 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.