Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Rance (Big Brother)


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Zach Rance (Big Brother)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A new user has created a bio for a reality tv contestant (finished 9th overall), who does not in any way meet the project's notability threshold, i.e. WP:N and WP:GNG. What scant coverage exists is sourced to Big Brother fansites and other news blogging type sources that provide a recap of the episodes, e.g. inquisitir.com, bustle.com, etc... (PS - I love how this bustle.com typo'ed "episode" in both the URL and the page title. Quality journalism... Tarc (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For one, new account because my last one got lost somewhere in cyberspace over the years, it happens. Regarding the article, in regards to a person such as the one in question, blogging and fansites are where the news is at because the Live Feeds and episodes of the show itself are the true source of most information.  One cannot adjust said typos for the authors of articles.  There are large amounts of information on this topic because of the enormous fan reaction to this person which is what spawned the article, which can be easily seen by searching news. The main purpose of the article is t the person, as well as the immense social media reaction that was received. In regards to the Notability (WP:N), the subject qualifies in all five points (WP:GNG). There is immense coverage in terms of social media about the topic and the article is continuously growing in information and sources, as multiple sources cover this person and the situations of which he is subject.  Many other contestants of the same show also have articles documenting their response and future endeavors, of which many experts on the topic agree the subject will have.   Cazzie09 (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * First off, most houseguests do not get standalone articles. The winners do, and others that have received actual coverage in reliable sources for other matters (AAryn for widespread accusations of racism, Jenn for being a member of Kittie, and so on).  Second, if you read though the GNG criteria, "immense coverage in social media" isn't a criteria.  This project requires in-depth coverage by multiple, legitimate news medias outlets. Tarc (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Quoting from the GNG, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly". Trends on Twitter are directly addressing the topic and articles written about such coverage proves the significance.  We are living in a digital and social age where a lot of news is reported in real time on outlets such as Twitter.  Many reliable sources no longer write articles, but instead keep their headlines to 140 characters or less.  I do agree with you argument about Aaryn and Jenn, however, I believe Zach qualifies under these criteria as well due to the reception he has received in traditional and social media.  (Complete side note here, I'm not a crazy Zach fan, he's not even my favorite, I just honestly believe he deserves his own article.)  As far as future endeavors go, notable Big Brother tweeter MissCleoBB (highly opinionated, but a good source for facts once weeded through the opinions) did a Google Hangout with Jill Rance yesterday where he stated his high hopes for the future of Zach with CBS and also discussed the Twitter sensation that surrounded Zach and all of the hashtags that were born as a result of the fanbase that was acquired by the HouseGuest.   Cazzie09 (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * . That means IF reliable sources cover the twitter and social media notoriety; you can't use social media DIRECTLY to assert notability.  WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ... I understand what a reliable source is and there are secondary sources that cover that.  Twitter handles were inserted because I didn't want to directly link pictures posted by individuals with the proof of the trending hashtag and expose their personal details in such a public manner, just to show proof.  I said in the last post that there are articles written about the coverage and they are almost all completely linked within the article already.  If you have a better solution to cite an event that happened on social media than what I have already done by citing a source talking about the event as well as the hashtag associated with the event, I would love to hear your wonderful suggestion. Cazzie09 (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * -edit- In addition, if you take a look at the pages for similar people, such as Aaryn Gries or Andy Herren, their sources are from the same, or similar, websites and occasionally lacking in depth and thus completion. As you stated, Aaryn has a page for racism accusations, which made traditional and social media buzz. Zach deserves a page for his traditional and social media buzz that was created over his crazy antics as well. And finally, now that I've had time to work on the article, I believe it is properly sourced as it includes primary and secondary sources in all possible cases. I believe the article was nominated for deletion entirely prematurely, 34 minutes after creation to be exact, as the article was still undergoing initial edits as well as content and source additions at that time. I do not suggest that this article is complete, as many on Wikipedia never are, however it discusses the impacts Zach had on the game and social media during his time on Big Brother 16 with sufficient sources. Cazzie09 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Even if there's transient notability, WP:NTEMP applies; this is "15 minutes of fame" notability. There are three news hits, all on fan sites. John Nagle (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: per WP:NTEMP as pointed out by John Nagle; Warhol was right about the 15 minutes of fame. Quis separabit?  13:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are too many articles that need to be deleted of people with "15 minutes of fame." This is one of them. While a new account creating a new article is NOT a factor to consider, the fact that this guy is not known for anything other than his 15 minutes does NOT qualify him under any circumstances, including WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2014 (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.