Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Sheppard: Difference between revisions

Phillip Sheppard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reality TV contestants are generally not notable. 96.224.44.119 16:34, 20 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 168.94.245.2 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User is now blocked. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.117.230 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, never even won the show anyway. 206.71.242.249 (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The following comment was posted to the article talk page, but it belongs here: Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I came to Wikipedia for its content. He regularly come up in discussions on"Survivor" game play.

This person is a part of Survivor lore, both past and (as of this week) present. He has been chosen by Survivor executives to play as a "Favorite". In addition, a book about him was released this week. Mr. Sheppard also participates in many charity events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.26.15 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That book about him was also cowritten by him, so can hardly be considered an independent source. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm far from convinced of the subject's notability, but must point out to the nominator and those giving "per nom" and "per above" opinions that this discussion is about Phillip Sheppard in particular, not about reality TV contestants in general. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, now appearing on multiple seasons of a reality show, so there would be no single redirect target, and the article is well sourced. Frietjes (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep All the other Survivor contestants have a page, also all these IP accounts are SPA's JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  No they don't. Only ones that were notable for some other reason like Lisa Whelchel (she was an actress) or winners for the most part, have pages. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Frietjes plus he is also a United States Army veteran and the book co-written or not has been promoted by third parties such as on Rob Cesternino's podcast and yes Cesternino is third party because the book is a separate project from Survivor. DrumstickJuggler (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. 24.46.86.58 (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting that the only edits made by your IP Adress since January 1st, 2007 (more than six years) is to edit this and the AfD discussion for Francesca Hogi. The WP:DUCK test suggsts that you are IP-hopping to WP:VOTESTACK--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt this could be the same user. WHOIS info shows 168.94.245.2 is from Minnesota and 206.71.242.249 is from Kansas while nominator is from New York. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to start assuming bad faith, but there are proxies as well as the small but still technical possibility that the IPs either know each other and of this sitation or that it could even be the same person (for example, someone on a business trip from one state to the next). I know it's a small possibility, but it's not impossible. It's especially interesting that there is a large amount of IPs interested in this situation, at least a number of which have very few otherwise edits in their contribution histories. The WHOIS may say one thing but the duck test suggests mad quacking.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable and all sources are about the show and nothing else. 2604:2D00:5:0:216:3EFF:FEF2:5BEC (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG! The book is seperate from the show. Therefore, your "reasoning" is a failure. Maybe you could actually try reading the article next time. Concensus is best reached when contributors actually assess the sitation properly which includes looking at everything presented, this isn't a voting circus.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, he had no pre-show notability, I really didn't know he appeared on Survivor and didn't watched on his Redemption Island season. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But he does have the book, not just Survivor and co-written or not, the book has been "promoted" by third parties.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reminder to those not reading properly that the book is seperate from the show.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is either a sockpuppet or hasn't read the article properly. If you continue to play the person rather than the ball you risk having your arguments in favour of the article ignored. If you think that the book contributes to notability then you need to provide evidence that it has received independant coverage in reliable sources, such as reviews in major newspapers, rather than just link to an apparently self-published web site that republishes a press release about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming that I'm assuming these things. The person I suggested hadn't read the article properly specifically said that all sources were about the show and nothing else when that is blatantly wrong, regardless of how notable the book is, because the book is seperate from the show. By replying to me, you are the one going off on an unnecessary tangent, not me. Looks like you could take your own advice at playing the ball not the person, because if you don't, people might think you are being a hypocrite instead of someone actually keeping relevant to the discussion.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete book and subject fails notability miserably. Sporty213 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Blocked as sock. CtP (t • c) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Foac (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]