Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Plencner

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. Petros471 12:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

db WP:BIO 8th ranked eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why is this singled out? There are dozens of articles about these contestants, and this one is more notable and much more flushed out than most. (If every Big Brither contestant was merged into the season they appeared then the nomination would make sense but just picking this one out of the blue doesn't.) 2005 06:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• no reason for keeping based on existence of other undeserving articles. These all need to be dealt with individually. and they are Ohconfucius 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. Michael 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Rangek 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" (current version of article doesn't show this, but such coverage is readily available, to be added). Also, having stand-alone articles, avoids excessively long "List of ..." articles, which have a dozen bios pasted together. --Rob 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the listed articles on her page could be considered non-trivial in nature, although sources are less so. would you kindly cite these "multiple non-trivial published works" you are referring to, otherwise, notability does not appear to be asserted. Ohconfucius 02:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the BB6 USA article. Plausible search term. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Same reasons as the other keeps. Comedy240 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect into BB6 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because according to WP:BIGBRO, only people who have done notable things outside the house should have seperate articles. There is nothing new in this article not said on Big Brother (USA season 6) Geoking66 02:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you opposed to a merge/redirect, when that's normally done when there isn't to be a standalone article? WP:BIGBRO says "While there's great debate about when to merge/redirect, rarely do contestants articles actually get deleted without a merge (in other words the content is retained). By policy, if the content of an article is merged, it can not be deleted, due to restrictions of GFDL.". Please point me to the part that mandates deletion, as you imply by your vote above. --Rob 05:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the above rationales for a redirect. Sandstein 19:43, 16 August 2006 (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.