Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Culley

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 2002 (UK). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Culley

Tim Culley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete - Reality television contestant with no notable activity since the show ended. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect Useless stub about nn, uninteresting person. Redirect to relevant BB article. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother 2002 (UK) He's non-notable, but at the same time, there's no reason to assume someone wouldn't search for him. -- Kicking222 23:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Kicking222. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Kicking222 - PocklingtonDan 10:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge content to Big Brother 2002 (UK). The article was recently given a facelift, but he is still not notable enough to deserve an article on his own. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Once the multiple non-trivial works required to establish notability have been created, they persist, so WP:N remains satisfied. To demonstrate this, I have re-written the article from scratch, and added sourced non-trivial pieces from reliable newspapers (and a book) about Culley; there would have been others published about him in the UK press during 2002. Eludium-q36 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The book is published by Channel 4 Books, which doesn't really count as a third party source. And musings on the word "comprende" don't meet the definition of "non-trivial published works" as I understand it. Anyone on a game show might get some blurbs written about them, but unless they win, I don't think they qualify as notable. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've used the book as a reliable source for biographical details of Culley, not for anything that happened in the Big Brother competition. The two Guardian articles are more about Culley than anything else, and certainly would not have been written if he had not done what he did. I fundamentally disagree with Leebo's last sentence; win or lose, if the non-trivial works exist, then the only logical conclusion would be to keep. In this case, there is an argument that sufficient works do not exist. Should the consensus be that the articles do not support a stand-alone article, then I would strongly support a merge. Eludium-q36 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In my last sentence I was referring to the situation in which there are not multiple non-trivial written publications supporting notability. Obviously, if the person is notable for something outside of the blurbs written about the show, that notability would apply. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not obvious to me that game show contestants are in general notable ( see recent AfD debates on "Countdown" ). Redirect per Kicking222. WMMartin 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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.