Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Clarke


 * 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   redirect to Survivor: South Pacific. The "keep" !voters do not give policy-based arguments for retention. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sophie Clarke

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability rests on one event: the subject's participation in Survivor: South Pacific.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Only notability is being a winner on Survivor: South Pacific. Vincelord (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - All the other winners have articles so why shouldn't she? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsh11111 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- Every winner has a page, so she should too. KJoJo2011 (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I note we actually have a category specifically for such articles: Category:Survivor winners. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Subject is notable only for her participation in Survivor, and all information in the article (except Clarke's date of birth, etc.) can be found in Survivor: South Pacific. Also, the fallacious argument outlined in WP:OTHERSTUFF is not grounds for keeping an article — "just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet." — Untitledmind72 (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * delete, non-noteworthy. In two to ten years it will be so "who?"  If other "contest winners" have articles, then it is probably time to revisit those entries to see if there is more non-noteworthy articles for deletion.  Can I say that we measure against the criteria for inclusion, not relative to the merits of another article. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - the point is that if this article is not considered noteworthy then most of the other winners should have their articles considered non noteworthy. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a general discussion over this issue rather than a seperate one for each winner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsh11111 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all winners have articles. Runners up usually are not notable.  –BuickCenturyDriver 13:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep winner of Survivor, one of the most popular TV shows ever, is definitely a notable event. Just look at the other 22 winners & tell us who DOESN'T have an entry. Guess we need to delete all those also. My honest opinion .... a few Wiki-Users didn't like Sophie & wanted someone else to win, so they are taking out their frustration on her article. Childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.69.146 (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting rationale: will give the article one more thorough week of discussion. Arguments state that the subject is only notable for one event, while others state that winning Survivor: South Pacific, and the fact that all of the other winners of Survivor have articles, warrants a keep for the article. I'll relist the article a second time to generate a more clear consensus. -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Survivor: South Pacific. B.Wilson sums it up quite nicely, above. We do have a guideline that states people are not notable for single events; we do not have a guideline that says winning a TV series where other winners have articles makes someone notable (in fact, we have a guideline that says the exact opposite). Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, redirect Yunshui has this exactly correct: per WP:1E this is not notable, and per WP:OTHERSTUFF anyone who thinks this unfair may take any or all other single-event articles to AfD as well, please do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect As above, this is classic one event stuff. If any other Survivor winners come up for an afd, I'd probably vote to delete those as well. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the show article, no notability, but only one event. Some Survivor contestants (including winners as well) have less notability and done nothing after the show. ApprenticeFan  work 10:02, 14 January 2012 (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.