Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tahan Lew-Fatt

Add links
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 was redirect to List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2013 series)#Tahan. I have considered the argument that the subject has notability outside the context of Big Brother, but the article is almost entirely on her participation in the program. On the other hand, there is considerable coverage of her in the list. There is no clear consensus here but the compromise redirect option should satisfy most of the concerns because most of the content is already in the list article, while we at the same time we follow the usual precedent of not having a separate biography for participating in a reality program. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tahan Lew-Fatt[edit]

Tahan Lew-Fatt (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)

The person in question is not notable enough to warrant an entire page dedicated to them. The majority of information on the page has been copy-pasted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Big_Brother_Australia_housemates_(2013_series)#Tahan and doesn't need a separate article. TameImpalaFan (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Being on the duration of Big Brother for 100 days which translates into about a 100 episodes is noteworthy. Even moreso is holding the record for being saved the most times by the public and generally being a popular public figure as a result. Tahan has attracted attention even before for her unique background and has been profiled in several newspapers for reasons unrelated to Big Brother. She is also the first person from the Northern Territory to make it to the finals of the Miss Universe Australia. UpendraSachith (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete (No need to !vote twice). Being on Big Brother doesn't necessitate a whole article for any housemate, let alone one that didn't even win the show. All information about the housemates can be found here in a handy little article: List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2013 series). The page in question has literally copy and pasted the information from the above page.
Tahan also hasn't attracted attention prior to Big Brother outside of some local newspaper articles which are very flimsy evidence to suggest any sort of fame or notability. "Several newspapers" is incorrect as it was one website that contained this information and was tabloid journalism - not a genuine, respected news source. These articles were written in a clearly promotional tone and aren't a proper representation of an actual proper newspaper.
I see no reason that this page should be kept as there is already a relevant page containing all of this information already. The only compromise I can see is merging the very small amount of extra info to the housemates page. If the actual winner of Big Brother (Tim) that has had a prior media career and is more well-known and well-liked than Tahan doesn't necessitate a whole page dedicated to him, then why does Tahan need one?
Also for what it's worth, I am a huge Big Brother fan and have followed every single episode and continued discussing the show since the season finished. I can tell you with absolute confidence that Tahan has basically been completely forgotten since Big Brother ended and has slipped back into obscurity, further proving that any sort of so-called "fame" was very, very short-lived.
--TameImpalaFan (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the statement that she has the record for being the "most saved housemate of all-time" is incorrect. Camilla from Big Brother 2006 holds this record, so this incorrect statement should not be taken into account. Not that it even warrants a whole page being made for someone or proves any notability or popularity anyway. There were 6 nominees each week this year, so Tahan had an 83% chance of being saved, as opposed to Big Brother 2006 which had only three nominees each week and a 33% chance of being saved. Camilla's was a much tougher and greater feat, and she deservedly holds the record for this.--TameImpalaFan (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've suspected as much that you are a Jade fan. The vigor with which you sought to remove the article is indicative. Tim should have a page, but it's not my duty to make one. UpendraSachith (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you understand what intellectually independent means. It means the article isn't copied word for word from another article. And NT Times is not affiliated with the subject so for all intents and purposes it is independent of the subject. UpendraSachith (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with the definition at WP:GNG rather than yours, thanks. VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. The show is notable, but notability isn't inherited. She's not automatically notable because she has a recurring role on a television show. She doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT, at least not yet. At the very least, the unsourced copypasta that comprises the body of the article has to get in shape. Once it's gone, there isn't enough left for an article. The sources are superficial and are mostly about her role on Big Brother. Grayfell (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:BLP1E (the suggestion here) surely doesn't apply to someone with an established modelling career, features in multiple magazines, televised appearances as a grid girl and articles in several newspapers who then goes on to feature (prominently) in a highly rated reality TV show. That the article needs work is a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. "Significant coverage" does not mean "intellectual or academic significant coverage" - features in men's magazines (no matter how vapid or "lowest-common-denominator") still count toward significant coverage. She's probably the only one of the contestants this year who was "partially notable" before her appearance. The additional coverage, prior to her appearance, gets her past the BLP1E issues that are usually problematic for reality TV participants, I think. Stalwart111 12:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111: I guess I'm not seeing it here. "Vapid" coverage can indeed be an indicator that it is trivial in nature; and while I am not positive that the multiple local stories on the subject aren't intellectually independent of the subject, they certainly are not intellectually independent of one another. WP:PAGEDECIDE seems to apply here - there is not enough verifiable information to significantly expand on the paragraph already written at List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2013_series)#Tahan, so why muck around with a stand alone article? VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "vapid" I mean "not particularly intellectual", which is how I would describe coverage like that in Zoo Weekly. But that doesn't mean it isn't significant coverage. Insignificant coverage would be a passing mention of her in a list of grid girls. That's not what we're talking about here - we're talking about interviews and feature spreads in magazines before she ever appeared on Big Brother. We "muck around with a stand alone article" because she is notable enough to justify one. There's plenty of argument that being on television every day for the better part of three months is more than enough "significant coverage" to justify an article but that argument with regard to reality television participants is usually killed off by WP:BLP1E. In this instance, we're talking about BLP3OR4E. Even if we consider the pre-BB coverage in the NT News to be one source for the purposes of WP:GNG (which is the accepted standard anyway) we still have to contend with coverage like this from 2008. I just can't see any way that we could consider 2008 Queensland coverage, 2012 NT coverage and 2013 BB-related coverage to not be significant coverage. It's long-term coverage in multiple sources not connected to each other and about different events/issues. Stalwart111 08:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article."
"Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event
All of the non-Big Brother sources are for NTNews.com.au, which appears to be a local newspaper, which significantly gives undue weight to any perceived notability. This is on par with an article on a local sport teams results or something like that. She had no prior fame. Some small-time modelling gigs do not denote fame.
Big Brother selects housemates which people do not know about. That's the whole concept of the show. "Ordinary people" are chosen. These are all puff pieces designed purely from a promotional aspect and do not in any way represent actual news or any notability.
As I've said before, the majority of the page has been directly copy-pasted from this article. When you take away that information, there is nothing left for the article to stand on its own. The tiny amount of extra information can be easily merged with the description on that page. There is simply no reason why there should be a stand-alone article. TameImpalaFan (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've significantly misinterpreted that policy. That section is aimed at excluding gossip and tabloid rubbish and preventing someone from building an article only on tabloid sources. Neither the NT News or the Courier Mail are tabloid sources and the articles from each certainly aren't "tabloid style" articles. Feature spreads in national magazines are not "small-time modelling gigs" and your attempt to downplay things because they disagree with your personal POV is telling. Your personal opinion that "Big Brother selects housemates which people do not know about" is exactly that - your personal opinion - and there is plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary is actually true given Tahan was well-known in men's magazine and motorsport circles and Ben was a regular on the Brisbane stand-up comedy scene. Even if it were true that the producers of the show favoured unknowns, that would still have no bearing on a discussion about notability here. That it would be a short article or even an article no longer that what exists elsewhere is irrelevant. Stalwart111 07:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the claim that "All of the non-Big Brother sources are for NTNews.com.au" is total rubbish, as evidenced by sources provided above and in the article itself. Stalwart111 07:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being realistic is not "downplaying" as you incorrectly put it. If anything, you're waaay overstating any sort of notability. The "other sources" that you refer to are not relevant. One is from a Bebo account of her sister. That has absolutely no place on a Wikipedia article. The other is talking about her mum, and is only a few paragraphs long. The absolute definition of a puff piece. Journalistic fluff. Appearing in couple of photos in a men's magazine are totally meaningless too. Cover model, she certainly ain't.
And the concept of Big Brother isn't opinion. How utterly ridiculous! It's a well-known fact that they take unknowns. That's why they had a Celebrity Big Brother - to differentiate from the regular Big Brother that contains "ordinary" people. Ben was not a "regular" on the stand-up comedy scene. This was eventually proven to be false. At most he had a few amateur spots and was featured in a review.
Your reasons to keep this page are flimsy at best. TameImpalaFan (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Please learn to indent.)
In citing the Courier Mail piece about her and her mother you're acknowledging that your original claim about all sources being from the NT News was a falsehood, and you're confirming my suggestion that coverage in multiple sources (independent of her appearance on Big Brother) exists. Cover model she ain't? Some would disagree. As I said, even if I agreed with your assessment of the producer's intentions, that still would have no bearing on this discussion. The only "well known fact" here is that we use Wikipedia's guidelines to determine notability, not the unverified personal opinions of editors. Arguing that an unknown producer's supposed preferences should be used as evidence that someone isn't notable would have to be about the flimsiest argument of all. Stalwart111 10:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And where did I mention the "Bebo source"? - that's total rubbish (both the source and your claim) and it should be removed (both the source and your claim). Lucky we don't rely only on the sources currently listed in the article but on what is available. Adding available sources is, again, a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problem. Stalwart111 10:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Courier Mail article wasn't about Tahan, it was about her mum, therefore it's irrelevant. All the relevant ones are from NTNews.com.au and they're all fluff and nothing more.
Yeah, she appeared on a cover - POST-Big Brother. A lot of female ex-housemates have. It's basically a tradition. It doesn't mean anything until it becomes a regular thing, e.g. Krystal Forscutt from BB06. I'd even say that it's in their contract to be allowed one Zoo magazine appearance after they've finished as well, so by that logic you'd be creating pages for every single ex-housemate that had a one-off appearance on a magazine cover. Your whole argument relies on the idea that she was somehow notable before Big Brother. She wasn't. End of story.
The concept of Big Brother just further proves her total lack of notability prior. They wouldn't choose her if she was famous, because then she would be given an unfair advantage in the competition, people would recognise her immediately etc. It would hurt the show and the public image of the show if they chose someone famous after establishing the shows concept for TEN YEARS, so they certainly wouldn't risk that. The fact that she wasn't recognised until people started digging around for a few modelling gigs just proves my point even more.
The Bebo source was one of the very few sources listed on her page, so I just assumed you were including that with your argument. Sorry, if you weren't, but you didn't exactly make it clear now, did you?
--TameImpalaFan (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um... what? The subject need not be the focus of coverage. You're just not getting it and I'm done explaining it again and again. Your arguments for deletion here are entirely unconvincing, especially given they are based on personal opinion, not policy. That you don't seem to understand where the Zoo Weekly material came from speaks volumes. This AFD is a waste of time and I'm done. Stalwart111 11:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to convince me whatsoever, therefore I'm "just not getting it". Nice cop out, but stay on topic please.
I've explained my points enough and I'll leave it up to the mods to make a good decision.--TameImpalaFan (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:47, 23 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tahan_Lew-Fatt&oldid=1082629615"