Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Hogi

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 no consensus. Poor discussion quality, including IPs edit-warring to close this discussion (!). I recommend relisting in a month or so in the hope of having a more focused discussion among experienced editors. Sandstein 20:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Hogi

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

Clasic case of WP:ONEEVENT, 96.224.44.119 16:28, 20 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

keep for now, it appears to be two events, since she is appearing on a second season. Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only created a few days ago and hardly notable outside of the show. The only contestants that should get articles are the winners and this person lost early twice. Vao Tv1 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it makes if it was made a few days ago or a few years ago? Show me the policy where me must delete new articles just because they are new - oh wait, you can't. Also, some people didn't win Survivor, but are notable for other reasons such as Jonathan Penner. Also, she lost FIRST twice and was the FIRST person to do so, a distinction not seen before. I don't believe she's as notable as Phillip Sheppard but that's besides the point, the standard is Wikipedia policy, not other articles. --DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Falls under WP:BIO. Very well sourced. Noteworthy contestant towards the franchise. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed as she is notworthy to the series as the furst contestant eliminated first twice, while Sandra Diaz-Twine also has a Wikipedia article for winning twice.205.209.83.211 (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is very obviously not a case of WP:ONEEVENT. It's well-sourced, and while it may need a bit of cleanup, it's well worth keeping. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she appeared on a highly notable television show in 2011 and then again in a different season TWO YEARS later? Yeah, if this is 'one event', then the moon is made of cheese. Plus her first person voted out first twice on a reality show distinction.DrumstickJuggler (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom 24.46.86.58 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to read the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions page. Not only does your 'per nom' contribute nothing new to the table, but it's also been pretty established that this isn't WP:ONEEVENT. Thirdly, WP:DUCK suggests you are using multiple IP Adresses to WP:VOTESTACK--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing to this: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. –BuickCentury Driver 20:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to AGF. I think the nominator is trying to point out the subject is only notable for Survivor. I seriously doubt that just because someone gets on a reality TV show they get their own article. The example of Jonathan Penner that DrumstickJuggler provided is that the person was notable before he appeared on the show and he has other sources, but to write an article about someone because they came on the show more than once make it more of fancruft, in my opinion. The question is whether or not this person notable outside Survivor. –BuickCentury Driver 19:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question is, are you keeping to what is actually on the table, or are you just tring to cloud the discussion with nonsensical fluff instead of the actual discussion at hand? WP:AGF or not WP:DUCK suggests this editor is quacking madly and whether or not they make a valid case, any sockpuppets they might be using should be blocked accordingly. Also, I don't think just anyone should have a page but she appeared on TWO television seasons and they were TWO years apart. She has appeared on professional lists of popular reality show personalities as well. She also has a distinction that hadn't been seen before in being voted out first TWICE. She is also the only early vote-off to be invited back for another season, although I can understand the claim in this current sentence to be seen as more trivia than a distinction.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still what you're pointing out is all Survivor stuff, nothing outside the show. –BuickCentury Driver 19:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A list of popular reality televsion contestants encompasses an entire genre of television personalities, not just personalities of the show. Interesting how you also have no response to the WP:DUCK part of my comment. I'll WP:AGF and say that you weren't trying to patronize, but in case you were, it looks like it backfired.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but reading those articles all are notable for things outside the show. Getting voted out first twice is purely survivor trivia. –BuickCentury Driver 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's reality television distinction. Name me one show in the entire genre where this has happened before.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fail notability guidelines and is full of survivor stuff. 2604:2D00:5:0:216:3EFF:FEF2:5BEC (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to explain why it supposedly fails notability guidelines? It's all well and good to make a statement like that, but if you don't back it up with explaining why, your claim won't hold much water. Plus, Survivor stuff = full of stuff from a highly notable television show.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, she is not notable outside of Survivor and while she is notorious for being the first player eliminated on two different seasons, there is no information on her page right now that would not fit on the pages for both seasons. As other editors stated, her statistic is trivial and does not merit having her own page. - Katanin (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you put for exmaple her ranking on the list of most popular African-American personalities? I'll admit I'm not sure when it was made but if it was done when there was even a chance of knowledge that she would be appearing on a later season (Caramoan), then that information at the very least may have influenced the rankings. I haven't actually read the source despite knowing it exists, but it can probably be found without too much hassle and for the reason I explained, if the list is from either early this year or in 2012, the reason I explained means it could be unclear which page it would better suit, meaning it may not be as simple as you make it sound to just delete and put the information elsewhere. As for redirecting, you basically can't because she has a pretty even connection to both of her seasons. Like other delete claimers here, it seems as though you are looking at the box, but you are not actually looking inside the box, to put it into a context.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The African-American reality stars list is not cited and, after a brief search as suggested by you, I can't find it. Also, the Dalton Ross quote ("Nobody has given you as much praise as we have.") is not in the cited article and, as discovered after another quick search, is only found on the Wikipedia page in question and other pages that have been lifted directly from it. As per precedent with Russell Hantz, the page would be redirected to "List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants. All of the properly cited and notable information already exists in the Redemption Island and Caramoan pages, and the information in the "Reception" section is either trivial, uncited or cited from a non-reputable source. Using Survivor Sucks as evidence for someone's reception is not valid, as there are supportive and non-supportive threads for nearly every player that has played Survivor. - Katanin (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a point, but then if this does get deleted, it would only be justice for the people desperate to see the page deleted to make sure to put the reliably sourced information in these articles. It is also no excuse for Phillip Sheppard to be under the microscope for similar reasons to Francesca Hogi because at least in his case, he is a United States Army veteran/former federal agent cited as having a book that is seperate from the show.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliably sourced information that is not already in either of the two pages. Please leave discussion of Phillip Sheppard's RfD to that specific page. - Katanin (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope that the information is on those pages, otherwise justice isn't serve. I also didn't discuss Phillip Sheppard merely mentioned him in passing so please get your terminology in order.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most Survivor candidates who have their own pages are noteworthy only because of their participation in the show. By being eliminated first in two seasons Francesca Hogi has made Survivor history, even if in a negative sense. - AK456 (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per everyone voted keep on the article. ApprenticeFan ^work 12:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete pure trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.36 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly take the opportunity to mention that we have another person here who claims that this should be 'delete' people, but again fails to give a reason as to WHY. Namely, why is it trivia? I wonder why they couldn't put that in their post? Hmmm.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Katinin. Sporty213 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Sporty213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , blocked as a sock[reply]
Delete per above. Foac (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Foac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , blocked as a sock[reply]
Comment: I am restoring the above two comments as they were posted before they were blocked and were blocked without warning or interaction to the users. I strongly suggest that anyone concerned with the legitamacy of these editors use the investigaions page. Thank you 174.226.4.31 (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.38.111 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AFD was closed by 174.236.68.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on Sunday and was reopened again by Frietjes (talk · contribs) yesterday. –BuickCentury Driver 04:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.