Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler MacNiven - Wikipedia
- 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:59Z
- Tyler MacNiven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - even setting aside the notability that I believe is inherent in winning The Amazing Race, MacNiven is notable for his college admission campaign, for which a number of sources are given in the article. "Cruft" is not a reason for deletion. Otto4711 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not see how either of these are notable. Must we list the winner of every national lottery, or a person who has run a minor political campaign? --MacRusgail 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC) p.s. plenty of things have been deleted for being cruft of one kind or another. Please check the records.[reply]
- MacRusgail, if the subject passes WP:N (and in the case of a human subject, WP:BIO suffices) then yes, we must not delete the article. The primary criterion being the existence of "multiple, independent, nontrivial sources". In this case, it is clearly a keep. (edit: also please reread WP:ILIKEIT for why 'cruft' is not a reason for deletion. —siroχo 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there is one simple reason most of these folk are not notable. No one will remember them in a decade. --MacRusgail 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Which is EXACTLY why we put him in an encyclopedia: so that this notable person will not be lost from human knowledge. "Cruft" is nothing more than a disparaging term for "detail". Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. --Richard Daly 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there is one simple reason most of these folk are not notable. No one will remember them in a decade. --MacRusgail 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- MacRusgail, if the subject passes WP:N (and in the case of a human subject, WP:BIO suffices) then yes, we must not delete the article. The primary criterion being the existence of "multiple, independent, nontrivial sources". In this case, it is clearly a keep. (edit: also please reread WP:ILIKEIT for why 'cruft' is not a reason for deletion. —siroχo 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not see how either of these are notable. Must we list the winner of every national lottery, or a person who has run a minor political campaign? --MacRusgail 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC) p.s. plenty of things have been deleted for being cruft of one kind or another. Please check the records.[reply]
- Keep One could argue that his admission campaign, his filmmaking career, and his TAR performance each make him notable by themselves. Combined, this one is a no-brainer. In the interest of disclosure, I am the main author of this article. --Maxamegalon2000 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep His funny little college campain and very minor (uncredited) appearence in a move are NOT notable and do nothing to help keep the article. Winning The Amazing Race is the only notable thing he has done and the only reason i'm voting to keep. TJ Spyke 01:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, let's not forget the other film he produced, directed, and appeared in. --Maxamegalon2000 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which appears to be a non-notable documentary. I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up being nominated for deletion (regardless of the outcome of this AFD). TJ Spyke 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, let's not forget the other film he produced, directed, and appeared in. --Maxamegalon2000 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Winning the Amazing Race is probably enough, in and of itself. -- TomXP411[Talk] 03:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Boilerplate vendetta against reality TV contestants and winners. Not being remembered by you in ten years is not a criteria in WP:NOTABILITY. --Canley 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Change to Weak keep as this person is a filmmaker too. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Keep An article about a filmaker, this is definitely notable, although the introduction of the article could be better, its still has a place here.TellyaddictEditor review! 11:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable. --evrik (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep has multiple mentions in reputable verifiable sources listed and he did win a million dollars on prime time TV show which is notable. Warfieldian 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - multiple non-trivial sources. ConDemTalk 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Stanford University Admission Campaign alone makes him noteworthy. —xanderer 21:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Reality tv cruft - not notable!" is the worst argument for deletion I've read so far. The subject is notable as per the multiple non-trivial sources cited. (jarbarf) 00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easily meets WP:BIO requirements. - Denny 05:58, 24 February 2007 (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.