Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ami Cusack
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ami Cusack[edit]
Relisted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brady Finta (et. al), no vote. — Mar. 3, '06 [07:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Delete as not notable.No context/importance outside Survivor. Spurious factoids about a person do not an article make. -- Krash (Talk) 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to Survivor: Vanuatu. -- Krash (Talk) 19:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This content doesn't even belong in the article for her season of Survivor. -- Vary | Talk 15:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup for reasons as per previous AfD created by me and cited by freakofnurture -- Arnzy | Talk 16:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BIO. Involvement in hit national TV show, and substantial media attention, easily qualify this person. There is a regular precedent to keep comparable contestants on national hit reality TV shows (with substubs being merged). Instead of randomly deleting contestants, based on who shows up for AFD, a simpler solution would be to mege/redirect where appropriate. We shouldn't delete articles, because we don't like a particular genre of entertainment. Wikipedia should determine who others have found notable, not decide for ourselves (with our personal bias) who should be notable. --Rob 18:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has said anything about not liking a particular genre of entertainment. I think the concerns of notability and importance that have been raised are quite valid. I certainly don't think the subject of this article would pass the 100 year test from WP:BIO. -- Krash (Talk) 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was an actor in a TV drama, same air-time, same success of show, same media attention, there would be no AFD. The *only* reason this AFD exists, is because this is reality TV. Normally, whenever a national TV show becomes a hit, all the stars of the show are deemed worth of an article. Also, the 100 year test, was a proposal, not accepted. Also, WP:BIO is a list ways which somebody may qualify. Nobody needs to pass each test, but rather just one. Let's use the non-crystal-ball 100-year rule: if somebody from a hundred years ago was writte about internationally, as much as this person was (on paper), would they qualify for an article today? Obviously, yes. If you can show the same international media coverage from a 100-year old entertainment personality, who had their article deleted, you'll prove your point. Otherwise, you'll prove mine. --Rob 18:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll prove nothing until I'm good and ready to. But the real issue here is that I don't think being a contestant on a gameshow is tantamount to being a notable actor. You're welcome to disagree. I simply take offense that you assume that this is about not liking a particular genre of entertainment. -- Krash (Talk) 19:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe "not like" is bad wording. But it does seem you "don't respect" the genre. How do explain not treating a reality contestant the same as an actor, on a show, with comparable success and attention? This seems no different than denying a comedic actor an article, when you'ld let in an equivilent dramatic actor. Also, Survivor is not simply a gameshow. Are you basing your vote on the assumption this is game show like Price is Right, or Jeopardy? The show is about the about contestants personally. Jeopardy is about the questions/answers, not about the contestants. The Price is Right is about the prizes. Actually, contestants on a reality show, are probably more notable than many comparable actors. Often actors on certain shows (especially some daytime soaps) are not considered very important (by fans, the show, or the media). Often little info is available on them, beyond what they or their employers release. Rather the characters they play are what's followed, and written about (of course, this is true, only some of the time). On a reality show like Survivor (or BB) the contestant is the equivilent of the actor and character, combined into one. --Rob 21:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll prove nothing until I'm good and ready to. But the real issue here is that I don't think being a contestant on a gameshow is tantamount to being a notable actor. You're welcome to disagree. I simply take offense that you assume that this is about not liking a particular genre of entertainment. -- Krash (Talk) 19:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was an actor in a TV drama, same air-time, same success of show, same media attention, there would be no AFD. The *only* reason this AFD exists, is because this is reality TV. Normally, whenever a national TV show becomes a hit, all the stars of the show are deemed worth of an article. Also, the 100 year test, was a proposal, not accepted. Also, WP:BIO is a list ways which somebody may qualify. Nobody needs to pass each test, but rather just one. Let's use the non-crystal-ball 100-year rule: if somebody from a hundred years ago was writte about internationally, as much as this person was (on paper), would they qualify for an article today? Obviously, yes. If you can show the same international media coverage from a 100-year old entertainment personality, who had their article deleted, you'll prove your point. Otherwise, you'll prove mine. --Rob 18:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has said anything about not liking a particular genre of entertainment. I think the concerns of notability and importance that have been raised are quite valid. I certainly don't think the subject of this article would pass the 100 year test from WP:BIO. -- Krash (Talk) 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep we keep articles on Big Brother contestants, why not this show? Jcuk 21:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now, until a concrete policy is reached about ALL articles of this nature. Deckiller 00:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep -- first openly lesbian ex-Playboy model with a grudge against men contestant on Survivor. The problem with reality show contestants is that they turn over every season -- only those who achieve significant media notoriety (Omarosa from the Apprentice, for example) or winners are really notable. Ami Cusack is a borderline case. Haikupoet 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- She's a contestant of a hit reality tv show and she's one of the stars of Survivor Vanuatu--hottie 15:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not only was she a notable villain in her season, she was also (as mentioned above) a Playboy model and one of the first openly lesbian players on Survivor. --JamesB3 16:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per my reasoning in the last AFD for this article. -Colin Kimbrell 18:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: unlike, say, Dirk Been, someone has actually taken the time to dig up information. Useful as a guide to the show, eliminates red links in main article. Calwatch 09:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:I absolutely think this article should be kept. She is one of the most notorious participants in one of the most popular reality shows out there. Agrippina Minor
- 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.