Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 6

6 September 2010

Gay Nigger Association of America

Gay Nigger Association of America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

The Gay Nigger Association of America article was deleted after a long-winded serious of AfDs. Since then, the GNAA has been clearly sourced in tier-1 blogs, publications, and major news outlets. (Current proposed revision: GNAA) (Old version: GNAA) LiteralKa (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Because the AfD for GNAA is protected, would an admin add the following to the AfD page:

{{Delrevafd|date=2010 September 2}} {{Delrevafd|date=2010 September 6}} Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you. Cunard (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Request: LiteralKa, please provide links to the sources that establish notability. Please provide no more than four such links. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • [8], Establishes link between Goatsec and GNAA, [9], and [10]. LiteralKa (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The first source provides little information about the group; GNAA is only mentioned as an example to: "The “find a group” section of the new Barack Obama social network contains a hard coded racial and sexual orientation slur." The article does not delve into the history or activities of GNAA. The second article mentions GNAA in passing. I was not able to find any mention of GNAA in the third and fourth sources.

      Unless reliable sources that discuss GNAA in a nontrivial manner are found, my position is keep deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

      • The second link establishes a connection between the GNAA and Goatsec. Pay attention. LiteralKa (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, but that is still a passing mention. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not entirely sure why my userspace draft has already been put up for the DRV, but I'd like to offer [11] as a non-trivial publication reference. Murdox (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Much better; this brings GNAA closer to passing Wikipedia:Notability but is not enough. Are there more nontrivial reliable sources? Cunard (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
            • this and everything that covered the iPad incident. LiteralKa (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The sources provided above and below are enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. WP:DENY and WP:BEANS are insufficient to keep this article deleted when there have been enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Allow recreation. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• This is a messy situation. We have an organization that has sponsored disruptive and recurring attacks on Wikipedia itself, as well as related official and unofficial communication channels for the sole purpose of their own notoriety and entertainment. Given WP:DENY, the entire community has a rightfully has a conflict of interest against anything to do with this organization, and this article has been deleted repeatedly. Nevertheless, they have received significant media coverage, particularly with respect to their recent information security work. While I strongly disagree with the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia, I have to concede that this disagreement is based on the organization's activities with regard to Wikipedia, and not on our content policies, and therefore I have to enter a neutral !vote into this record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triona (talk • contribs) 04:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I personally feel the userfied versions in progress are not quite ready to go live, but the proof of notability is there. To your concerns regarding the subject's history on Wikipedia, author Andrew Lih in his 2009 book The Wikipedia Revolution: How A Bunch of Nobodies Created The World's Greatest Encyclopedia has this to say about the subject:

What were some ways to troll and cause trouble? Create an article about something extremely controversial and offensive, but otherwise adhere to every rule of Wikipedia and use the system against itself. This was the case with creating an article that had an intentionally offensive name, the Gay Niggers Association of America. GNAA was a name that caused immediate alarm in anyone with a semblance of good taste. It was a phenomenon for many years in the online tech communities, as legions of trolls attempted to have an article in Wikipedia about the mischievous group. It's not clear a defined group ever existed as GNAA. Supposed GNAA "members" were simply troublemakers online who unified under a common moniker in an effort to disrupt Wikipedia for amusement.

riffic (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • Note: I brought this up for DRV on July 27, and started a userfied version in response. This has been worked on in parallel with Murdox's version riffic (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Wasn't this an article that had been salted under a different name about a year ago? Recommend this be salted as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Uhh, no. This was the "main" article. LiteralKa (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This !vote should be discounted because you provide no justification for your recommendation riffic (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Also the fact that you can't SALT something that has already been salted. LiteralKa (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• allow re-creation. Like Trionba, I have the impression that the desire to remove this article is based on our (entirely understandable) view of its activities, and not the problems with sourcing--the standards seem to be applied a little more stringently here. But I differ about the conclusion:, in my opinion, tThe best course with situations like this is to make the article, and I;ve said this consistently about all the groups critical of Wikipedia. Anything else would not be NPOV, but is rather saying, we require NPOV, except if you are writing about us. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Do not allow re-creation Per WP:DENY, and WP:BEANS. Still does not pass Wikipedia's core principles. SirFozzie (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Since when is a humorous essay grounds for salting a page? Additionally, WP:DENY deals mainly with vandalism. There have also been examples in the past of WP:DENY being overridden by WP:N, such as Encyclopedia Dramatica. LiteralKa (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • comment And what would those principles be? Until you can state a specific policy or guideline the recreation would violate, you are just another !vote. riffic (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:NPOV for one, WP:SOURCE for another. The book above is nothing more than navel gazing, and calls into question the groups existence as a whole. SirFozzie (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Your mentions of NPOV and WP:SOURCE are not enough. "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why." Please be specific when you state "the book above", as I am not sure what reference you are referring to. The possible non-existence of a subject does not void claims of its notability. riffic (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep deleted under this title, although I would permit a carefully sourced article about Goatsec Security, which based on the links is the notable organization here. While I acknowledge that there appears to be an overlap in membership, the high-quality sourcing that exists establishes the notability and activity of Goatsec alone. Where there has been such a long history of trolling, it is no violation of NPOV to take a "go slow" attitude with respect to GNAA. Rather, it reflects a prudence based on experience that such articles quickly devolve into timesinks that fail to accurately inform our audience. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, could you elaborate on what you mean when you write "it is no violation of NPOV to take a "go slow" attitude with respect to GNAA. Rather, it reflects a prudence based on experience that such articles quickly devolve into timesinks that fail to accurately inform our audience."? I've read that over four or five times trying to make sense of it, thanks. Murdox (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment There isn't just "some" overlap, there is a substantial overlap[12][13][14]. LiteralKa (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Goatse Security IS the GNAA. If you visit the Goatse Security website you'll notice a note at the bottom that says "Goatse Security is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GNAA". I created Goatse Security solely because it was hard to get press organizations to quote "Gay Nigger" though many have done so (from IDG publicatons to The Atlantic magazine) in relation to Goatse Security anyways. --weev _{talk 2 me} G N A A™ 06:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Couldn't find reliable sources about Gay Nigger ... except for some in which the main topic was one of their members, but not the assocciation itself. --Diego Grez (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Have you even been paying attention to the discussion? We've established notability. LiteralKa (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You have not established the notability of the group itself, but one of the members seems to be notable with the great coverage the iPad event took. Diego Grez (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Check again. LiteralKa (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Comment Please do not delete other's comments as you did in this edit, while I am assuming good faith that this was merely an edit conflict, you should be more careful in the future. Thank you. LiteralKa (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Wait, have you seen this yet? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes. This has been posted before. LiteralKa (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep deleted-While this version does show a good faith effort to provide proper sourcing, and its admittedly borderline, but it just doesn't make it. All of the reliable sources seem to talk about individual members of the GNAA, mentioning the organization itself not at all in most cases, or very briefly in others. Even if members are notable (which is a question for another discussion) that doesn't mean the group inherits that notability.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Not true, the group "goatsec" itself is what is often talked about, and it "belongs" to the GNAA. Only after weev got arrested did the focus turn to him. LiteralKa (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That's more an argument for the notability of goatsec. Same deal applies: even if a subset of GNAA (ie, Goatse Security) is noatable, that doesn't in and of itself make GNAA notable. If anything, GNAA should redirect to Goatse Security, as Potatoswatter says below.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Create Goatse Security and redirect there Prominent news outlets do mention GNAA, but there's clearly more discussion of Goatsec, and a hacker group (white or grey hat) is more apt to notability than a collective of trolls. I was pretty surprised there isn't an article on Goatse after reading those articles. GNAA, it's unclear whether they have proper membership, or if it's just a moniker sometimes used for its own shock value. "Weev" may be a notable person who claims membership, but that doesn't necessarily make it an established and notable group. Keep in mind that his self-professed job is to do whatever he can to get attention. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; per above, members have been shown to be notable, but not the group. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment again, the group "goatsec" itself is what is often talked about, and it "belongs" to the GNAA. Only after weev got arrested did the focus turn to him. The interviews of him are most likely because he is a spokesman of sorts for the group. LiteralKa (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation Solidly rewritten. Conflict of interest doesn't carry much weight in mainspace - we have clear standards for content and the last thing we should be doing is censoring because of negative interaction of the article subject (and members/supporters) with Wikipedia itself. The same sources would be a definitive "keep" in almost any other AFD/DRV. Do not agree that the topic of the article having at times attacked Wikipedia is a good enough reason to override our own usual norms - articles are decided on the basis of notability. However would agree to re-creation and long term PC or semi or full protection as it would be a vandalism magnet, but so are many other topics we manage to keep in broadly good condition. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Nicely put! LiteralKa (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Considering how much this already has been put through AfD, Deletion review, and finally salted, not to mention the fact that it borders on violating WP:DENY, it's going to take a lot more sources to establish even an iota of notability to this group of Wikipedia vandals. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment So because it's a sensitive issue, it has different standards of notability? LiteralKa (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Allow, but recommend authors get more solid sourcing I don't think Murdox was ready to announce this, someone else brought this here, right? The authors should make the sourcing unimpeachable. This will immediately go to AfD and people will pounce on sourcing - whether they believe it or not it is their wedge to argue delete. Truthiness: other articles might survive AfD on this sourcing but not controversial ones. 74.61.46.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC).
• weak allow I'm not sure that the sourcing level is enough to have an article on them, but if I had to make a call it seems that there is enough at this point. If not for the history and the name, an article on the subject would likely survive an AfD. Therefore, it seems unreasonable to prevent recreation at this point in time. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The proposed draft shows the problem here. While it is true that reliable sources have mentioned the name (or alluded to it), there is simply no way to tie the various alleged activities together without resorting to unreliable sources. This is not a matter of happenstance; it is because reliable sources are declining to report on an organization whose sole aim is attention. It is not for us to lead the way in coverage of an ongoing subject; this is the gist of WP:PRIMARY, and it applies here, not because the subject has not been mentioned, but because an article cannot be written without resorting to original or unverified research. Chick Bowen 22:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"GNAA" as a term, has gained significant notice, easily enough for an article. if the objection is that "there is simply no way to tie the various alleged activities together without resorting to unreliable sources", ie that original research would be needed to write an article, then I disagree. NPOV contemplates reporting all significant views. We can agree there is a term or loose group identified or self-identifying as "Gay Niggers Association of America", that it has gained notice in numerous reliable sources, and we can fairly and neutrally report the topic as covered in those sources. At most we might be limited to a strict reading of the sources (including any disagreements in them), but I don't see anything stopping us writing an article that neutrally characterizes the significant views on the topic or evidence that we don't have enough significant views to do so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment I would imagine that they are declining to report because of the name of the organization in question based on two reasons: 1) Foreign press is using the name, as American newspapers are probably not going to mention the "Gay Nigger Association of America", but foreign countries have a bit more sensibility. 2) When the organization is going under different names, they are getting massive coverage. (i.e. goatsec). LiteralKa (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment And based on weev's comment below, I'd say that I'm right. LiteralKa (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Allow recreation (opine as non-sysop) – Per FT2. I think some Wikipedians want to use WP:DENY simply because they fear and distrust the GNAA. Fear and distrust are characteristics of assuming bad faith. Why are we assuming that the worse will happen? We have an article of GNAA member weev, but that article hasn't become a vandal magnet. The JIDF and its owner had attempted to influence Wikipedia (and the same could be said of MyWikiBiz and its owner), but I don't see anyone using WP:DENY to delete the JIDF article. Perhaps we should stop assuming the worse and start using WP:AGF. If the JIDF and MyWikiBiz have articles despite their attack on Wikipedia, why can't the GNAA have an article? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Allow recreation My comment on the deletion request still stands. The only opposition I see against this article being allowed is: 1) Vandalism on it. Okay. I understand that, vandals will vandalize anything. Wikipedia deals with vandals everyday. So lock the article to registered users only, or just ban the vandal. 2) Lack of notability. There have been many sources on the article, and I do think it's very notable to be allowed on Wikipedia. These guys (despite being trolls) prevented the contact information of over 120,000 Americans being sold to spammers. I really think we are going around in circles here. I still see no reason why this article is not "ready for the world". Yes, distasteful name. Does that make them any less notable on Wikipedia due to their actions? No, it doesn't. Let's publish this article. Harry (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Allow recreation - BEANS/DENY as grounds to oppose? This is what kept articles for ED and the Wikipedia Review deleted, long after they had passed a reasonable threshold of notability. It's time to stop with the "they're mean to us so let's pretend they don't exist!" mentality (or in ED parlance, "BAWWWW"), this article finally meets WP:N. Tarc (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Allow recreation This discussion will just happen again in a few weeks anyway. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I'm neutral on the discussion (I think the link between this and G. Security is weak) but the !vote to delete based on BEANS and DENY really needs to be discounted. I'm tempted throw in a !vote just to counter it. Hobit (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Allow recreation: We should only argue this DRV on the merits of the claims of the AFD, which based its outcome on grounds of lack of sourcing. Let me remind everyone that AFD #18 took place 3 years, 9 months and 11 days ago. The article has since been worked on in userspace, a draft with sources has been produced and consensus is starting to agree that the article makes the grade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 16:22, 8 September 2010
  • Comment Oh, right, I completely forgot to mention that the reason it was deleted is no longer valid for keeping it deleted. LiteralKa (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment to agree with some of the above WP:DENY is/was never about article space. It was about the activities we undertake elsewhere which are counterproductive in their effect to reduce vandalism. Having this article may encourage some to vandalise it, but look to the list of the most vandalised page and there are dozens of others which could be said to do the same we aren't going to run off and delete Cheese because it's been heavily vandalised in the past. There is a key sentence in WP:DENY about evaluating the cost/benefit, the benefit here must outweigh any deteriment since our goal is to create a comprehensive, free, NPOV encyclopedia. The only question is does it meet our inclusion standards of which WP:DENY isn't one. To disagree with some of the others, yes we should be careful we aren't knee jerking against the subject, but by the same token we also need to be careful not to overcompensate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Chick Bowen. Also, allowing recreation just because we'll have this discussion again isn't a reason to allow it to be recreated. Also, arguing to undelete it on the basis that we deleted it because we supposedly don't like GNAA? No, sorry. Because we fear and distrust them? No, sorry. And on and on with the undelete rationales. There's clear reason to keep this deleted, as CB noted. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added my comment above. The rationale is that sufficient sources and evidence exists to recreate and the "trolling" nature of the subject should not be a factor in whether it is deleted or restored. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I never mentioned anything about trolling. The point is whether something can be properly sourced. Chick did a good job of describing why that is not possible in this case. Just because you can find some sources doesn't mean an article is well sourced. This is a large gulf of difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment Nobody is saying that the old undelete was "unfair". The current draft is properly sourced and demonstrates notability. LiteralKa (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Allow A bit on the borderline, but the sources seem just broad enough to cover WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. A bunch of trolls and hackers deserve a Wikipedia article? You've got to be kidding me. That is an extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary sourcing. A few passing references plus a long list of self-referential sources is not significant coverage in reliable sources. Suggest, after this is closed, seeking a community ban on opening a further DRV for at least one year given the number of times this has been taken to AfD/DRV already. SpinningSpark 00:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, sensitive issues do not have different standards of notability. Please see the notes regarding depth of coverage, the sources presented go deeper than what would be considered trivial or incidental coverage. Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content riffic (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing to keep this deleted because it is "sensitive", I am arguing to keep it deleted because they are a bunch of nobodies. All the reliable sources I looked at gave only a passing mention and the rest were all sites associated with the subject. SpinningSpark 09:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well clearly you did not look at all the sources presented in the draft. I recently updated the article to include multiple citations to Jodi Dean's Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive., which invalidates your theory that it only includes a passing mention. Do you have any valid rationale for not allowing recreation? riffic (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted yet again, for the same reasons as last time: they haven't actually done anything notable, and even the most basic facts about the 'group' are unverifiable. Also, don't forget that when this was deleted originally, Jimbo commented and, while not outright forbidding the article, he did chide the community for being overly beurocratic and keeping it around for as long as it did. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Commment What Jimbo thought years ago is irrelevant-- if he has an opinion about this now, he is welcome to express it here, but he has not yet done so. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment – The GNAA has done notable things recently under the "Goatse Security" moniker. Can you please read the previous comments in this discussion? The GNAA is responsible for uncovering privacy issues as noted in various sources. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Russell Hantz

Russell Hantz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

The Russell Hantz's article was deleted and is currently redirecting to Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains. However, he played a big role in 2 big events, as he was also in Survivor: Samoa, making it to the end and winning "Player of the Season" plus $100,000 in both seasons. He also was arrested, which got a lot of coverage. Also, considering Heroes vs. Villains consisted of Survivors 20 most popular players and he won America's vote for "Player of the Season", that makes him one of the most popular, if not the most popular player, to ever appear on the show. According to WP:ENT, television personalities with a large fan base have evidence of notability. RandJshow (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Allow recreation. Things have changed since the most recent deletion debate. In particular, the Heroes/Villains series finished with Hantz again a very significant player (indeed the series' protagonist). It is silly that we somehow automatically allow articles for milquetoast winners of the series, but not for highly controversial and prominent non-winners like Hantz who get large amounts of coverage in the media. Nevertheless, that is an argument I should make in another AfD. Because of developments, the most recent AfD should no longer bind the fate of the article.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mkat, are you saying that if I create a new article for Hantz, then it shouldn't be deleted? Or are there more steps in this debate? RandJshow (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is my view. But it would be best to wait until this listing is finished (in about 6 days time) because others might disagree with me. Also, even if you do create an article, someone could then nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD so it isn't "safe" from deletion. If you get the ok here, I'd be happy to userfy the old article for you to work on and update.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Can you point to evidence/sources of Russell meeting #2 ("Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following") of WP:ENT ? Finishing 2nd then 3rd in two seasons of Survivor itself doesn't cut it, so IMO this fanbase assertion is going to be his only ticket in, until/unless he does something else notable in the future. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Like Mkat said, Hantz was the show's protagonist both seasons he was on. He might not have won among the jury, but America voted him "Player of the Season" both seasons he was on. That's very significant, considering most people just vote for the person they like the best and that "Heroes vs. Villains" consisted of Survivor's 20 most popular players.

If for some reason that's not enough evidence, what else would be acceptable to prove his large fanbase?

RandJshow (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources from which to write a biography. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose there is a difference between popularity and notability. LiteralKa (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Redirected the major factor here is essentially the claim of having lots of supposed fans, which is pretty dodgy to begin with. Let's face it, while they are often seen by a large audience, reality contestants simply don't have fans in the sense that pop singers have fans or sports teams have fans. It's possible that someday Hantz will have a spinoff show or something, but for now a redirect to what he's truly known for will suffice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:ENT, television personalities with a large fan base have evidence of notability. Although what you're saying may be generally true, Hantz was probably the most popular player in 20 seasons of one of the biggest shows on television. He was like Ken Jennings on Jeopardy or Omarosa on The Apprentice. He might not have as large a fan base as some pop singers or sports players, but it is larger than many of them on Wikipedia. Besides, you can't argue that someone doesn't have a large fan base because some people have larger. That's like saying a 160 IQ isnt considered smart because some people have 200. RandJshow (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But this isn't a biography, it's a plot summary of the episodes he appeared on. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He also appeared in Survivor: Samao, had an arrest that got a lot of coverage, and owns several businesses. It is silly that we somehow automatically allow articles for milquetoast winners of the series, but not for highly controversial and prominent non-winners like Hantz who get large amounts of coverage in the media. RandJshow (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What large amounts of coverage? There are no reliable sources in the article. And what arrest? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay Eve...you're looking at last deleted article on Hantz, which wasn't as detailed nor sourced as it should've been. I had written a better article, but wasn't able to post it because of this redirect. RandJshow (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)