Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Sheehan (Survivor contestant)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Tommy Sheehan (Survivor contestant)}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Tommy Sheehan (Survivor contestant)}})

Notable for winning Survivor: Island of the Idols, no doubt. Unsure whether suffering from concussion and then being medically disqualified from The Challenge: Spies, Lies & Allies makes him also notable. [https://ew.com/tv/the-challenge-spies-lies-and-allies-episode-3-tommy-sheehan-concussion/ The EW piece] is just an interview with the article subject and more of a primary source than secondary. Same with [https://ew.com/tv/survivor-island-of-the-idols-tommy-sheehan-quarantine-questionnaire-challenge/ the EW questionnaire], where he announced his retirement from reality TV. The [https://www.distractify.com/p/does-tommy-leave-the-challenge Distractify article] just recaps the primary source, an episode of The Challenge where the concussion occurred, and cites the EW questionnaire just to announce news about his retirement from reality TV. IMO None of these sources verify his independent notability. (Well, his concussion was heart-wrenching, and I don't mean to offend it or downplay it or be insensitive about it.) The sources can prove that he's, in an existent manner, more than just a Survivor winner, but I just don't see how these sources make him more notable. But the sources and notability, including (in)substantial coverage, are not just the issues I'm raising.

The article's compliance with WP:BLP1E and/or WP:BIO1E and/or WP:NOT is what I'm more concerned about. Furthermore, I'm concerned about this person's compliance with WP:NACADEMICS, i.e. his notability as a schoolteacher. I just couldn't find one reliable source contextually verifying his notability as an academic or a schoolteacher or a school district employee. How this person won the Island of the Idols season can be already explained in the season page. How this person was medically disqualified can be already explained in one of The Challenge season pages. IMO The article should be redirected to either Survivor: Island of the Idols or List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television, and New York. George Ho (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. Sheehan violates WP:BLP1E, being solely notable for winning Survivor (even then, some would doubt if that even counts), but sourcing is poor on the subject, mostly being interviews, and notability as a teacher is non-existent. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 10:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. he is most known for winning Survivor 39, but he has made other media appearances which warrants a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecheeseistalking99 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• :To which other media appearances besides Island of the Idols and The Challenge were you referring? How is The Challenge sufficient to save this article from redirection? George Ho (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• :How is he professionally an actor, a celebrity, or anything else? He appeared in just two television shows and no other, and his Survivor win was his only significant role. He didn't contribute much to the entertainment field. George Ho (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• ::I concur. I wouldn't classify a reality show contestant as an actor, nor under anything else that would fall under WP:NACTOR. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 04:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: So, if he had only won survivor, I'd agree he doesn't meet the guidelines per BLP1E, but having another television series appearance (as much as that's over only 3 episodes) tips the balance for me. I agree it's a tight one, but there are at least a couple articles on the refs that show he's had some significant coverage due to the Survivor win. WP:NACTOR #1 seems like a reasonably low bar to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• :In other words, he also meets WP:NBASIC, making WP:BIOSPECIAL inapplicable. Right? George Ho (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• ::Reply made at {{dif|1154733592|Lee's talk page}}. George Ho (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• ::{{ping|Lee Vilenski}} All right. I'll clarify my question. You said he meets WP:NACTOR (barely?), and now you mention GNG in your talk page. From what I can tell, you think he also meets GNG. If that is the case, does that mean he also meets WP:NBASIC, which is what an individual like Sheehan is supposed to pass? I did mention WP:NBASIC because it's required for any individual person to meet. NACTOR is just one of additional (optional?) criteria, and he didn't have to meet NACTOR if he meets NBASIC sufficiently. I also mentioned WP:BIOSPECIAL because that one says that standalone articles of those meeting only at least an additional criterion (like NACTOR) but fail NBASIC may be unsuitable for this project. I just would like to ask you whether you think BIOSPECIAL applies. George Ho (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• ::{{ping|Bgsu98}} Same question(s) that I lately asked Lee (about NBASIC and BIOSPECIAL). George Ho (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• ::{{ping|Lee Vilenski}} Oh, and doing other things... may not save the article after all (unless proven worth including in this project). Bob Crowley did post-Survivor activities, but that didn't prevent the article about him from being redirected. George Ho (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• :I do agree in that it's borderline, however I would interpret WP:BLP1E as an article that would only meet notability guidelines for one thing. Because Sheehan wouldn't meet said notability guidelines for just being a contestant in The Challenge, it falls foul of it. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 04:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

:Keep: via Lee Vilenski Jack4576 (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Meets BLP1E, sources with SIGCOV are all related to the 1E. Brief mentions and listings about other subjects do not demonstrate notability. Keep votes BEFORE hasn't yielded any additional sources outside of the article and seem to be based on dismissing BLP1E.  // Timothy :: talk  08:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: Plain BLP1E case, and I agree with Timothy that the counterarguments seem based around ignoring BLP1E's validity. Ravenswing 01:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Delete in light of BLP1E. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.