Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Westman (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Arguments for deletion stated that the subject either failed WP:GNG or that evidence failed WP:BLP1E for being too closely associated with a single event; the win of Survivor: Palau. This argument was successfully refuted by demonstrating the subject passes WP:GNG through the presentation of evidence which demonstrated WP:SUSTAINED coverage in connection with more than one event. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Tom Westman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tom Westman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although he appeared in both Palau (in which he won) and Heroes vs Villains, this person was more significant in Palau. He was eliminated before the merge in Heroes vs Villains, and I don't think his gameplay made much of an impact to that season, despite how visual and apparent it was. Outside of Survivor, I've seen just his firefighting experience, his shift to insurance (but described briefly), and his personal life. If he can't be redirected to Survivor: Palau, at least redirect him to list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. George Ho (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable reality TV figure who won Survivor: Palau, competed on Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, and is a fan favourite contestant. A winner who has played more than once securely warrants a keep and his legacy is larger than other previous Survivor contestants who have kept their articles such as Sue Hawk and Vecepia Towery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecheeseistalking99 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Thecheeseistalking99 (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and per previous nomination. RedPatch (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Snow, winners of Survivor are both notable and well-sourced. Two have already been removed in poorly attended AfDs and those should both be reversed. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Participated twice, but in my view still doesnt pass WP:ENT. The criterion "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;" is not fulfilled if you win one show and finish 16th in another (maybe winning twice would count as "significant roles" in multiple "television shows"). Another way to look at this is to see how much in-depth coverage about them is actually available which seems to boil down to three tidbits of information about being a firefighter, insurance industry worker and having a deaf daughter. The main argument for keeping seems to be WP:WHATABOUTX. --hroest 19:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not forget WP:ANYBIO, none of which this person meets IMO. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Winning Survivor is a significant honor, which would meet WP:ANYBIO KatoKungLee (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think a significant honor refers to winning a game, honestly. Moreover, winning $1 million and Sole Survivor title, to me, isn't that prestigious. I looked up "honor", and I can't tell whether the show is that prestigious, despite running for more than two decades. I know the show is "significant" to the reality TV genre, but calling $1&nbap;million win after lasting 39 (or 26) days and earning jury votes an "honor" begs definition expansion or expansion of scope, doesn't it? George Ho (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep improved the article by adding a few more citations. Plenty more exist to meet notability.Pershkoviski (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What about complying with WP:BLP? Furthermore, even such sources would probably describe same info about him as the article already has. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Survivor winner and meets WP:GNG. No different than winning the Super Bowl.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" opinions are of very poor quality, asserting notability for winning a reality TV show without basis in applicable guidelines. This needs more discussion of the quality and quantity of available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the season page. Fails general notability with WP:BLP1E, the article generally fits WP:NOTPLOT, and there's a decent amount of WP:OR in regards to some of his accomplishments in comparison to other series winners. And regarding the Super Bowl comparison: there is a wealth of information written about the players and teams that play in the Super Bowl beyond their participation in that one game. Where is any of that information for this, or any other Survivor winner? -fuzzy510 (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case, the Super Bowl comparison that fuzzy510 was referring to can be further seen in another ongoing AFD discussion. George Ho (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP1E doesn't fit this nomination because his participation in Survivor makes him a high-profile individual which removes him from BLP1E (see WP:LPI which must be met to qualify). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think BLP1E doesn't apply, then how about WP:BIO1E instead? As I believe, it can apply to any individual, high- or low-profile, living or deceased, notable for just one event. Of course, it's subjective at best. To me, he was highly significant in only highly-viewed Palau; not so much in Heroes vs. Villains. The Heroes tribe eliminated him in HvV some time before the merge, and he didn't have a chance to impact the whole season.
    Whether he was high-profile (especially in your definition) is one thing, but writing and editing an individual article about him is something to debate about. I mean, his significance outside Survivor I think pales in comparison to his Survivor appearances, and I figured there's not much to tell about post-Survivor activities either. Well, I can see majority voting to keep, but numbers may not mean as much as both the arguments and weighing them. George Ho (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "my definition", the definition is clear at WP:LPI which is used by and linked to WP:BLP1E as essential criteria. Your link is outside the range of an individual who has won this high-profile television show. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still linking to the essay, aren't you? You can think otherwise about BIO1E, but how "high-profile" the TV show is still wouldn't affect the profile status of this person, regardless of appearance in that TV show. Don't you think? The BIO1E, different from BLP1E, can still apply to high-profile individuals known for only one event, including winners.... more likely because it doesn't say that it is limited to only low-profile ones. Palau and HvV are individual events to me, and he won only Palau and hasn't won any other season since. George Ho (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try some reading comprehension here. It is WP:BLP1E that links to the essay to define what low-profile and high-profile individuals are, not me. To downgrade a descriptive essay which is used as criteria for policy seems misleading. Editors continue to use BLP1E without, apparently, reading or understanding it. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geez. I don't know what else to say to you... other than, "Thanks for reminding me about BLP1E, but I still wouldn't assume they cited policy without reading it." Since you replied to fuzzy510, why not one of us ping her to await her response? George Ho (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As @George Ho pointed out WP:BIO1E is probably more appropriate here. But even then, he doesn't neatly fit in the criteria for either low-profile or high-profile individuals as outlined in that essay. In the case of either BLP1E or BIO1E, however, I notice that nobody has addressed what is my biggest concern - the article is entirely plot summary from their Survivor seasons, and runs well afoul of WP:NOTPLOT. What isn't plot summary is WP:OR. If I were, for sake of discussion, to remove both of these questionable elements from the article, there would be not much beyond "He won Survivor, and participated in a second season." How does that possibly justify an article? -fuzzy510 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like @George Ho I don’t see participation/winning a game show significant enough to merit a BLP. However, there are people notable for appearing on many shows, and if sourced correctly might deserve a BLP. But this ain’t one of them. If those who are adamant about winners being notable, I suggest they create a RealityTV Task Force and define your own criteria and see if the community agrees. There are stupider projects, so good luck. Artificial Nagger (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I note in my comment on the AfD for Bob Crowley (Survivor contestant), I've never watched Survivor. However, I think the series is itself sufficiently famous and widely watched, year after year, that each season winner is notable. There shouldn't be a "notability contest" among season winners, but when I see three AfDs in a row for season winners, along with a suggestion in the comments on one of those AfDs that the AfDs for Brian Heidik and Chris Daugherty were "poorly attended", I'm worried that that's where this is going. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE or redirect per BLP1E. None of the “keep” votes are supported by policy. The rationale they use is OtherStuffExists or Survivor winners are automatically/inherently notable. I don’t need to explain to the closer OtherStuffExists, and AFAIK RealityTV show winners, while may be BLP1E notable don’t cross the threshold into GNG. They’ve got to gain traction outside of their “event”. If someone presents a “keep” !vote that uses actual policy/guidelines I’ll gladly change to keep. Please ping me if you find one. Otherwise I’ll expect the closer’s job should be quite simple.Artificial Nagger (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Artificial Nagger, since WP:BLP1E does not apply if the person sought publicity, which this individual did by showing up on the set of Survivor and agreeing to be filmed, that's enough to rate as a high-profile-individual per WP:LPI. He fits the criteria. LPI must be applied, but it's possible that closers who close pages which contain long discussions in a minute or two may have never analyzed that, which is why discussion participants should. Please give those another reading, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Survivor:Palau article. There's really no coverage of them outside the reality shows. To equate winning a reality show with winning the Super bowl is absurd at best. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 00:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Plenty of secondary RS exist such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. The nominator's deletion reasoning is invalid and not set in policy. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsure why you used NY Post as an example. It's considered unreliable per WP:NYPOST as of now. Many other articles you exemplified are based on Westman's Palau winnings. As I can see, he planned to spend $1 million for mostly his kids' college educations, but, other than improving the biographical article, I don't see how this info can save the article from being redirected to another destination. So does the 2006 Irish America Magazine article describing his post-Palau activities.
    NY Daily News article says he hadn't been at that point chasing after reality TV "fame", so I doubt Mr. Westman would care about (the fate of) the Wikipedia article about him. Furthermore, the news article itself doesn't cover his HvV appearance very much, despite trivially mentioning it.
    Curiously, I wonder whether you have read and/or reread GNG, particularly the "presumed" part, which mentions and wikilinks WP:NOT. Speaking of WP:NOT, do you believe that the article violates it? Why or why not? George Ho (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan 1234, thanks, you've analyzed the situation well and sourced and pointed out why this individual is notable. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • A second relisting in a second nomination shows that the page is obviously at either Keep or No Consensus (by relisting does the first keep or delete comment "break a tie" or something?). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your prediction, but this isn't democracy. How the arguments are weighed is up to the closer (...or DRV if the closure is viewed to be incorrect and if the closer hasn't reconsidered it). George Ho (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see plenty of coverage that passes Wikipedia:GNG. I see ongoing coverage. I see and hear the arguments that winning a reality show isn’t in an of itself notable, but I don’t concur when we are talking about one of the best known and highly covered reality shows and the individual is sufficiently sourced, I mean that Courant article cited is in pretty impressive depth. I’m just not seeing the case for deletion here.
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-2007-05-27-0705270663-story.html
Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The news article (or rather an interview with Westman that is posing as an article) from Hartford Courant was two years after Palau (2005). As I see, he discussed mostly Palau, he was hired as The Hartford representative, and he made a guest role in The Young and the Restless. I'm unsure, despite being highly detailed (or significantly covered), whether one is enough to make his insurance career more significant than or as significant as his time in Palau. So would his Y&R role. All it would is potentially improve the article, but I'm still uncertain whether detailing his insurance career and adding the guest role in a soap opera can save the article from being redirected to the season page. George Ho (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The guy won a highly publicized show (and with high ratings, most episodes were >20M), returned to the same show several years later, appeared in another television show (albeit as a guest), appeared on specials related to that event (including both direct Survivor shows and TVGuide), appeared on Letterman, was nominated for a Teen’s Choice award (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1798644/awards/), etc etc. I am just not seeing how the combination of reasonably detailed articles isn’t enough to establish notability here, both those cited in the article, and those present elsewhere. I guess my point is, we can quibble over individual sources all we want, but I think that’s losing the forest for the trees…your ultimate argument seems to be that winning a reality show shouldn’t make him notable under WP:BLP1E, but I’m not sure that really works for two reasons…first, I think he falls between WP:BLP1E and regular bio, since while the win is what pushes him over the top, he did have the subsequent appearance on the show; second, I think there’s sufficient sourcing out there for WP:BLP1E.
As an aside, does anybody have access to TV guide online, there may be a June 5 2005, Vol. 53, Iss. 23, pg. 36, by: Katie Gallagher, "What Women Want..." article that involves or mentions him that should be checked?
Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase I said before: his role in Palau is the most significant. His other appearances either pale in comparison or don't match, especially the one in Heroes vs Villains. In other words, not as significant as his Palau appearance (and win). Oh, and the page from IMDB is user-generated and considerably unreliable per WP:IMDB. And.... I wonder whether the author of a TV Guide article was the same Palau runner-up (who IMHO performed abysmally in the (jury) finale, i.e. Final Tribal Council).
Oh, and I checked other sources used in the article. Per WP:RSP#Screen Rant, Screen Rant isn't appropriate for BLP articles. Survivor Hall of Fame isn't independent from Survivor franchise to me; that source is also part-interview (i.e. primary source). Neither is the host Jeff Probst's top ten favorite winners. George Ho (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is alternate (albeit not contemporaneous) confirmation of the Teen’s Choice award nomination and I’m sure it’s verifiable in print media (this was 2005, not everything is going to be online). https://liverampup.com/entertainment/tom-westman-survivor-married-wife-family-height.html
I guess I still just don’t see how he doesn’t rise to the level of notable, I mean heck, the guy was on one of the weekly TV Guide covers https://books.google.com/books/about/TV_Guide.html?id=m6yvgvusRXoC and gets mentioned pretty regularly.
I get that you have sourcing concerns, but I think they’re not insurmountable. And again, I think we can nitpick over each individual source not meeting this policy, or that policy, but I think the shear bulk of evidence here is enough that we should preserve. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, Screen Rant is not verboten, it’s cautioned…
“ There is consensus that Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons.” I would argue you’re interpreting WP:RSP#Screen Rant more strictly than it was intended, notability isn’t what I view the consensus view of “controversial” for RSP. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point about Screen Rant. Moving on, I don't know where Live Ramp Up got the info about Teen Choice Awards nomination from, but I can find another source via The Wikipedia Library. (Speaking of Teen Choice, that nomination was Palau-based.) The source uses CBS News article; reliable, but it's based on winning the Palau season. The Uproxx article, also used by Live Ramp Up, is dead, and I couldn't find it on Internet Archive. George Ho (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really do hear your Wikipedia:BIO1E concerns.
It’s marginal if any reliable sources cover him as a main or sole focus of coverage of the event initially making him notable, rather than him only in connection with an event or organization. I fully acknowledge that. However, since he was the main focus of several post-win articles, and there were several events associated with the win including the aforementioned nomination, and since there are other events such as a second, full not merely reunion/clip show appearance on Survivor (American TV series), which I acknowledge not all will consider a separate event, I think he squeaks over. BUT the article would still need substantial revision if retained as it currently is partially duplicative of the content in the season article and needs improved sourcing. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jo7hs2 (who is Jo7hs1?), thanks for your good analysis and for holding strong against the bludgeon. No wonder many good editors won't come close to RfC discussions, some of these guys tooth and nail editors before the keyboard finishes vibrating. Survivor really has to live up to its name here! Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_Survivor_(American_TV_series)_contestants as per WP:BLP1E MetricMaster (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddy1 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Jo7hs2 - Subject meets WP:GNG. I don't see why WP:BLP1E would apply here; we have evidence of sustained coverage beyond the single event. Suriname0 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is notable according to all relevant guidelines. I’m surprised anyone would have considered this to be in question. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's further comment - I can respect and appreciate !keep votes that cite notability, guidelines, and number of activities and appearances. However, the matter isn't solely about notability. Rather it's about what to do to the article about him. I'm unsure whether detailing his appearances and activities, especially less significant ones, would be in readers' best interests as well as this project's. If the article is retained by default, be it "kept" or "no consensus", then that means cleaning up the article. However, I'm unsure whether cleaning up the article would help much other than to appease those wanting to keep the article. George Ho (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Almost forgot: the whole discussion depends on whether guidelines or policies weigh more than the other. If neither, then should be equally, right? George Ho (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This page should have been Kept a long time ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 27 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Westman_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1147212090"