Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulie Calafiore

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 redirect‎ to Big Brother 18 (American season). The detailed analyses of reference material leads to the conclusion that there is not enough to sustain an article, however large the number of them may be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Calafiore[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 04:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and New Jersey. Skynxnex (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Big Brother 18 or to Cody Calafiore. Not notable enough to pass guidelines. Coverage about him is nearly all in relation to The Challenge/Big Brother, or him coming out after being eliminated on The Challenge recently. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agree with above, bring back the redirect. Mike Allen 13:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has appeared in enough appropriately sourced and varied television shows to meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was only a contestant (that doesn't win) on Big Brother and The Challenge. That's a stretch of the GNG policy. Mike Allen 13:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he keeps coming back for more shows which are then noted. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't cut it by any length of the imagination. It just makes him bit-part reality star. They don't get articles. scope_creep^Talk 15:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you don't like it?, and casting aspersions on my imagination makes me...ah...I don't know, can't imagine what. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG because "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Also, he played soccer professionally for the Colorado Rapids. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is valid either. That is a completely false statement. Where is the coverage to support that. scope_creep^Talk 15:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself cannot substantiate the claims in the article. There is no evidence that Calafiore ever played in a game for Colorado Rapids. – Pee Jay 10:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how any of his reality TV appearances qualify as “significant roles”. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His roles in television and in sports are a more than credible claim of notability, and the sources back up that claim. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Lacks notability. Competed on, but did not win, Big Brother or The Challenge. Simply appearing on those shows is not inherently notable. His so-called “career” in professional soccer is dubious at best. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Colorado Rapids thing, in spite of appearing in an ESPN article, may not be completely untrue, but he was never drafted by the Rapids as one source claims (this is incredibly easy to verify), and there's absolutely no documentation with him signing for, training with, or appearing for the Rapids. It looks like the ESPN author probably just regurgitated some puffery and it made it into Wikipedia. I haven't looked at the rest of the article, but any argument that he's a professional footballer that was made here is simply flagrantly incorrect. He did appear to be a good collegiate player, though. I'd support redirecting this. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer That's not true. There are other sources on the article's talk page, if you want to take a look. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: There are other sources, but they are all lies. At best he had a trial with the Rapids. There is absolutely no media coverage that he was on trial there, though. His brother was on trial with the Columbus Crew and at least has a source proving that. One of the articles you mention says he was drafted by the Rapids - that is easily verified as false. Again, there is absolutely no documentation of him ever being even on trial with the Rapids, and none of the articles on the talk page are in a position to claim otherwise. Which begs the question - if this is a lie, or overstated, what else in this article is wrong? SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhhhhhh ok, I didn't realize all the sources were lying. (eye roll) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I told a journalist I had played for Real Madrid, no one fact checked it, and then the claim I played for Real Madrid gets reprinted 10 different times in sources that we'd claim to be reliable... even though it's incredibly easy to determine I've clearly never played for Real Madrid... how else would you classify that? SportingFlyer T·C 08:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly notable figure with mnany sources already. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Seems to be a lot of "inclusionists" here a label along with "deletionist" I never liked because its not accurate but when you get editors that "drive by" to !vote keep without any intellectual examination of references, that will need examined in the coming months to see if there is a problem here, particularly since there has been claims that the references are untrue. Lets examine the first two blocks in detail:

Ref 1 [1] It is a clickbait site. States the sources are US Weekly and his instagram. So its not independent.

Ref 2 [2] Another clickbait site. Links to his instagram account. So its not independent.

Ref 3 [3] It has direct comments from his, so it is not independent.

Ref 4 [4]

Ref 5 [5] Passing mention in a 4-line paragraph. Not significant, nor in-depth.

Ref 6 [6] Passing mention. Not significant, nor in-depth.

Ref 7 [7] A routine annoucement that he is going Big Brother.

Ref 8 [8] This is a cast for "The Challenge" made up of small profile. Not in-depth.

Ref 9 [9] Another clickbait site. Not independent.

Ref 10 [10] Another clickbait site. Not independent.

Ref 11 https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/challenges-cara-maria-sorbello-wants-marriage-kids-with-paulie/] His wife.

Ref 12 [11] An interview. Not independent.

Ref 13 [12] Another clickbait site. Has the couples social media links to instagram. Social media driven. Not independent

Ref 14 [13] Another clickbait site "Speaking exclusively to the People magazine". An interview. Non-rs likely.

Ref 15 [14] Another clickbait site. His timeline. Not independent.

Ref 16 [15] Clickbait site. Content lifted from a youtube interview by Calafiore. Not independent.

So to summarise:

1. Not independent
2. Not independent.
3. Not independent.
4.Couldn't see this. Likely clickbait site.
5.Passing mention. Not significant, nor in-depth.
6 Passing mention. Not significant, nor in-depth.
7.Not in-depth not significant
8 Not in-depth
9 Not independent.
10 Not independent.
11 His wife comments
12 Not independent
13 Not independent.
14 Non-rs
15 Not independent.
16 Not independent.

So the majority of these references are social media fed clickbait that are pure trash in everybody's book. Looking at them of the 16 references in the first blocks, 9 are not independent of the subject, 2 are passing mentions, 2 are not significant nor in-depth and one is non-rs and one I can't see it is likely another clickbait site, by the quality of these. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY reference in the first blocks and there is NO evidence he was drafted. None at all. scope_creep^Talk 11:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right! Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews, at least the couple I've looked at, are not just pure q and a, they give background, further information, and feature the subject. Take out the quotes and there is still enough material to count as a source. Dismissing such references discounts the full feature article status and factual or descriptive wording, so these should certainly be counted as independent and secondary sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop making false statements. Interviews do not count toward notability, particularly the majority of these that are using social media to drive their content model. That is established consensus They are lowest quality clickbait crap that is possible to imagine as a source, yet your supporting them. There is a limit to peoples patience. scope_creep^Talk 15:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think with the Colorado Rapids thing though - which is clearly and easily verifiably incorrect, but also picked up by a lot of these sources - if you remove the coverage of this person that wasn't directly supplied by them, there seems to be precious little for this article to hang its hat on. SportingFlyer T·C 13:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: No evidence he was drafted. Sorry. sp mistake. scope_creep^Talk 15:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally disagree with Scope creep and their (incomplete) assessment. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clickbait articles are still valid coverage. Interviews can be independent, non-independent would mean articles by the subject himself. And passing mentions add up if there's tons of them. There is clearly enough coverage to pass GNG. Ortizesp (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with clickbait articles is that it's not necessarily secondary coverage. The entire problem with his non-professional football career is he said he played in MLS and no one fact checked it. No one as far as I can tell has identified a source that's truly secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 08:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clickbait articles aren't valid coverage in any kind of instance and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. They are not independent by definition. They are generated by software, by bots largely at the moment and as time goes on they will generated by AI, as is starting to happen now. They have no intellectual depth, they are merely surface, copied and pasted information from somewhere else. They are not independent by definition. They are used by sites to drive the companies advertising model. That is all they are for. Wikipedia is built on intellectual analysis and if your building articles based on what you have just said, then there is a real and serious problem here. Your stating a falsehood, essentially and following an ideology that is at odds with Wikipedia core policies on notability. If your using clickbait sites to support your articles, then you need to stop. Regarding passing mentions. They don't add up to anything. They have no intellectual depth. They are merely linking text, in the context of some other subject, and there is nothing that can be used prove something per WP:V. Your statement constitutes a fringe view, common to a core block of inclusionists who are willing to completely bypass or ignore consensus based notabilty standards to prove a point. The saddest thing about this as core content creator who I used to really value, due to the amount of articles you created, I wouldn't trust another word you said. scope_creep^Talk 09:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Re: "Your statement constitutes a fringe view, common to a core block of inclusionists who are willing to completely bypass or ignore consensus based notabilty standards to prove a point. The saddest thing about this as core content creator who I used to really value, due to the amount of articles you created, I wouldn't trust another word you said." Who are you referring to here? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Can you please clarify? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking to editor Ortizesp. Why did you quote my comment with red ink. scope_creep^Talk 14:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, I found sources like [16], [17], [18], [19], among manymany more sources online. Clearly notable figure with mnany sources already. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor news pieces and some interviews. Giant Snowman 19:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman Are you able confirm if any of the 30 sources currently used as citations, most of which mention the subject by name in the title, are inappropriate for Wikipedia? I'd like to start there, before addressing depth of coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As SC says, lots of non-independent and clickbait. You need to persuade me he is notable, not the other way around. Giant Snowman 20:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how this works, I'm just trying to first establish that the 30 sources currently used as citations are at least appropriate for Wikipedia. If you're saying no, can you please be specific about which publications are problematic and why? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, Also they arent merely minor news pieces, and the inetviews do ahve secodnary coverage. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to re-analyse what SC has already done and which I agree with. Giant Snowman 10:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC's "assessment" is a joke and ignores half of the sources already used as citations. This doesn't seem constructive and I'm confident the page will be kept, so I'll just move on and let others weigh in. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep this guy seems pretty notable with all the tv shows hes been onMuur (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is notable and has appeared in many different reality shows, which he wouldn't if he wasn't notable. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This focusing on berating other editors who have drawn different conclusions than you have after examining an article and its sources has to STOP now or blocks will begin to be handed out for incivility and casting aspersions. This is a focus on the article not on other contributors. Wikipedia succeeds because we have civil discussions among editors who hold a variety of points of view. AFD should not be a rubber-stamp process. Please limit your disagreement to source evaluation and not on other editors' values. If you can't discuss differences of opinion without snide insults, then you should stop participating in AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has recently underwent a WP:HEYMANN standard update with the addition many new references: I'll examine the first two blocks.

Ref 1 [20] This is a routine PR annoucement of Cody Calafiore joining Big Brother. Its not independent.
Ref 2 [21] It is a clickbait site. States the sources are US Weekly and his instagram. So its not independent.
Ref 3 [22] Another clickbait site. Links to his instagram account. So its not independent.
Ref 4 [23] It has a number of direct comments from him, speaking to the site, so it is not independent.
Ref 5 [24] Unable to view it.
Ref 6 [[25] Passing mention in a 4-line paragraph. Not significant, nor in-depth.
Ref 7 [26] Another clickbait site. An interview. Not independent.
Ref 8 [27] Another clickbait site. The exact same story from Ref 7 above.
Ref 9 [28] Passing mention. Not significant, nor in-depth.
Ref 10 [29] A routine annoucement that he is going Big Brother.
Ref 11 [30] This is a cast for "The Challenge" made up of small profile. Not in-depth.
Ref 12 [31] Another clickbait site. Not independent.
Ref 13 [32] Another clickbait site. Not independent.
Ref 14 [33] Single sentence mention as younger brother of Cody. Not significant.
Ref 15 [34] Another clickbait site. His wife.
Ref 16 [35] Another clickbait site. An interview. Not independent.
Ref 17 [36] Another clickbait site. Has the couples social media links to instagram. Social media driven. Not independent
Ref 18 [37] Another clickbait site "Speaking exclusively to the People magazine". An interview. Non-rs likely.
Ref 19 [38] Another clickbait site. His timeline. Not independent.
Ref 20 [39] Clickbait site. Content lifted from a youtube interview by Calafiore. Not independent.

So it looks like 5 new references have been added to the first two blocks. None of them are considered WP:SECONDARY sources that would establish notability. Instead its typical of a listing of PR coverage for a z-list celebrity. WP:Notability (people) defines three critieria to establish notability. The subject here fails on all three. They are neither worthy of note, nor remarkable nor significant or interesting. The WP:BLP crieria states Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. None of these are high-quality sources. scope_creep^Talk 07:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this assessment and will continue asking the editor to leave me alone. Moving on to other parts of the encyclopedia... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, I agree. I just read the article again and I can't find anything about him that seems in any way notable. None of those stints on The Challenge nor his one appearance on Big Brother resulted in a win, nor any press other than "This guy is appearing on [insert show here]." He got a tattoo and learned tae kwan do. Big whoop. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I looked at the first 15 sources and was unimpressed:

1: trivial mention in article on his brother

.
2: low-quality ("Paul was born in Howell, New Jersey, to Parents Palu Jr. and Linda Calafiore. He graduated from high school in his hometown New Jersey before moving to Rutgers University. While in the university, Paul played for the Scarlet Knights football team and was on the stars.") amalgam of regurgitated web-scraped factoids

.
3: semi-opinion piece mostly composed of quotes

.
4: interview with very little independent encyclopedic commentary (maybe 1.5 sentences)

.
5: blurb hyping TC:U 2 with basically no encyclopedic content

.
6: passing mention

.
7: tabloid trash with mostly quotes

.
8: almost 100% quotes

.
9: non-independent

.
10: local-interest news with a small amount (~5-6 sentences) of independent content; not enough for me

.
11: blurb in cast listicle

.
12,13: tabloid trash by non-journalists

.
14: passing mention

.
15: interview with no independent content

.
If the next 15 sources are similar to this then I !vote delete. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother 18 (American season) as a non-notable game show/reality TV show contestant and per source analysis by JoelleJay and Scope Creep. Frank Anchor 17:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother 18 (American season). After going through the list of what's been proffered as sources, that is the most one can graciously suggest. Thanks are due to JoelleJay and Scope creep. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Frank Anchor and The Gnome: Can you both confirm you've reviewed sources in the article itself, and not just those posted above? The source assessments by JoelleJay and Scope creep are both (admittedly) incomplete. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the first fifteen provided sources were found to be of poor quality, why should anyone be expected to parse the next fifteen? Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question wasn't directed at you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Anyone is welcome to participate in AFDs. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, but I am specifically asking two editors about how they've assessed coverage, especially since their comments are very similar. You, too, seem to support Scope creep's assessment, but can you please stop interrupting? You're trying quite hard to ensure deletion of an entry which more editors here seem to prefer to keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look at the pages in the article at the time I voted; I made the very reasonable assumption that the "keep" voters would present their best sources while in their argument. Thank you for drawing my attention to other sources available. However, most of what I see in the article I consider to be either routine coverage or interviews, so that does not change my redirect vote. Frank Anchor 12:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother 18 (American season) given the lack of quality sourcing. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2023 (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.