Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie White (2nd nomination)

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. SpinningSpark 13:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie White

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

As WP:BIO1E. Won Survivor in 2009, and has had no public presence afterwards. Currently, all Survivor winners have pages; there is a case that receiving 1 million dollars for starring on a 16-episode TV series meets WP:ENT.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- largely unsourced original research and no encyclopedically relevant prose. Not a public figure. I consider reality TV winners to be akin to beauty pageant winners; they need to have done something notable outside of winning the competition for their articles to be kept. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:BIO1E Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notable for one single event, so no justification for this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although there might seem to be a rough consensus to delete based on the comments above, I am relisting in hopes of achieving wider participation in light of the previous aparently robust consensus that Survivor winners (as opposed to run-of-the-mill contestants) are notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She would be the only Survivor winner to not have a wikipedia article, every winner has a wikipedia article. But I agree she should do more with her life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalcolmFangirl482123491028490 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eluchil404 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. This appears to be a good example of the risks involved in reaching a consensus that a particular class of articles are inherently notable. Such shorthand policy formulations are generally based on the argument that "anything/ anyone of this type must have been discussed in reliable independent sources that demonstrate notability". In this case the answer is clearly not. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:34, 4 June 2017 (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.