Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Washington, D.C.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Washington, D.C.. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Washington, D.C.|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Washington, D.C.. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Washington, D.C.

[edit]

George Washington Revolutionaries women's lacrosse

[edit]
George Washington Revolutionaries women's lacrosse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge with George Washington Revolutionaries until sufficient independent sourcing is found, as there is no inherent notability for college sports teams. Article was already moved back to mainspace by creator. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Cochran (Survivor contestant)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
John Cochran (Survivor contestant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reading the prior nomination on him, the "keep" votes were based on (presumed notability of) other existing Survivor winners (until recent years of AFD noms on certain winners).

This discussion isn't about the article quality. Rather it's about this person's general notability and any other sort of (applicable) notability thereof. He might or might not, but most of the sources used significantly covered him as the winner of Survivor: Caramoan, especially one EW article of winners list and a university's article about alumni and a CBS magazine article.

A recap article by EW details his cameo appearance in Survivor: Game Changers, but then that's just a recap article, despite the magazine being highly reputable. (BTW, the author of the article has expressed his opinions in other articles.)

I'm kinda cautious about using an ABA Journal article to verify his notability. The source was probably promoting his then-upcoming interview, which is a primary source, one of which to never use to verify this person's notability per GNG. (Will describe some other sources soon.)

I don't wanna argue with others back and forth similar to the other AFD discussion. Nonetheless, I fear similar arguments made in that discussion would be inevitable.

As said in that discussion, if WP:BLP1E isn't applicable to you, then how about WP:BIO1E instead, WP:NBASIC, WP:PAGEDECIDE, and/or WP:BIOSPECIAL? Furthermore, WP:BLP should also apply. Indeed, I'm not confident (yet) about his notability for his Survivor: South Pacific gameplay and its compliance with the BLP policy itself.

Sure, his roles in Survivor have been significant, but his amount of major roles IMO hasn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Well, he's been a post-Survivor television writer, but whether he meets WP:NAUTHOR isn't the main issue. Rather WP:NBASIC and WP:BIOSPECIAL should supersede his (non-)compliance with WP:NAUTHOR. George Ho (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to find reliable sources verifying his (general) notability, but I can't use this questionnaire answered by the article subject himself. Entertainment Now cites IMDB, which is an unreliable (user-generated) source. I'm uncertain whether to use this profile page either. I can say the same about this source, which is citing (if not reporting) the same EW questionnaire that I wouldn't use.

Almost forgot: The page should be redirect to his winning season, Survivor: Caramoan. George Ho (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per my messages below — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thowing every magic word in a attepmt to get pages you demonstrate a WP:IDONTLIKE is counter productive Wwew345t (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wwew345t, this discussion is not about George Ho, but about the article. Feel free to take your concerns to his talk page, but following him around AfD is not productive. I'll also note your comment on this talk page. win8x (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
apologies i missread the reporting system I thought I had to bring my concerns ti the page I feel the problems are occurring Wwew345t (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless my vote is still KEEP as there are secondary sources proving notability Wwew345t (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where should I put my concerns? Wwew345t (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also voted keep based on WP:NACTOR there are plenty secondary sources that establish his notability the primary sources are there to complement the artcile furthmore he doesnt meet all 3 critiera for BLP1E Wwew345t (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://patch.com/virginia/oakton/is-this-the-end-for-cochran https://www.nydailynews.com/2011/11/24/survivor-season-23-recap-coachs-scheming-side-shines-through-keith-and-whitney-couple-up-cochran-is- seasons-worst-storyteller/ https://www.masslive.com/television/2011/11/survivor_cochran_kicks_a_littl.html all of these are secondary sources covering his south Pacific appearance clearly demonstrating notability for more then one Survivor appearance also the notion that "it's a reliable source but the author has opinions" is redundant the debate is to establish sig cov in relablie secondary sources which the sources do just because the author has opinions (which is kinda the point when your covering entertainment articles lol) doesn't make a reliable source unreliable Wwew345t (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Patch article was an opinion piece by an ordinary citizen (who is a Patch member). The NY Daily News article is a recap of an episode. So is the one by The Republican (MassLive). Recaps are (summarization of) primary sources, which are discounted by GNG, so I gotta treat those recaps as such. I'm unsure how and why you reply too much and argue with me and others back and forth. George Ho (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC); edited, 00:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources by definition get their info from a primary source hence where they are called secondary sources the fact thats its a summarization of a primary sources makes it a secondary source Wwew345t (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a primariy source unless its an interview of someone with first hand knowledge of the event in question a receap of what happned in a tv show doesnt qualfiy as that Wwew345t (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this page and that page about what a secondary source is, well.... CBS recaps episodes... Actually, used to, but I consider CBS somewhat a primary source. (Trying to find other sources explicitly categorizing recaps as either primary or secondary sources.) George Ho (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
according to wikipedias definition of secondary sources stuff that is made after the fact with hindsight are considered secondary sources and the recaps are covering the events of episodes that had happened a couple days prior so by a very loose definition I believe they are secondary especially since no one is actually interviewed in said re caps Wwew345t (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Itd be a lot easier to determine if they listed who wrote the recap unfortunately they dont so it could be anyone that works for cbs regardless of wether or not they had anything to do with Survivor Wwew345t (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's "a very loose definition" in the sense that "made of strawberries" is a very loose definition of a motor vehicle. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure you could make a case for the CBS pages being primarys but there are still the EW sources Wwew345t (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Andreeva, Nellie (2015-12-11). "CBS Developing Comedy From 'Survivor' Winner John Cochran & Greg Garcia". Deadline Hollywood. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "John Cochran’s dream Hollywood run continues. After winning Survivor: Caramoan, he landed a comedy writer job on the CBS series The Millers. And now the 28-year-old Harvard Law graduate is getting a shot at creating his own show with the help of his mentor, The Millers creator Greg Garcia. ... Cochran co-executive produces with Amigos de Garcia’s Alix Jaffe. ... Cochran had been a huge Survivor fan since the reality series’ first season. He handed out Survivor newsletters during high school, wore a Survivor-style buff on his arm and at Harvard Law, he won the Dean’s Scholar Prize for writing an essay about the Survivor jury system as compared to the one employed by American courts."

    2. Otterson, Joe (2017-11-29). "CBS Developing Multi-Cam Legal Comedy From 'Survivor' Winner and Dr. Phil's Stage 29 Productions (Exclusive)". Variety. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "CBS is developing a multi-cam legal sitcom that hails from “Survivor” winner John Cochran and former “Modern Family” writer Dan O’Shannon, Variety has learned exclusively. ... Cochran appeared on the 23rd season of “Survivor,” finishing in 8th place. He returned for the 26th season, winning the season and the $1 million prize. Following a post-show interview with host Jeff Probst, Cochran revealed his desire to be a comedy writer. He was subsequently contacted by Greg Garcia who offered him a job on the writing staff for the CBS series “The Millers.” Cochran also developed “Bob’s Your Uncle,” a comedy pilot for CBS and CBS Studios with Garcia executive producing. He has also written for the CBS comedy “Kevin Can Wait.”"

    3. Nordyke, Kimberly (2013-05-23). "'Survivor: Caramoan' Winner John Cochran Lands CBS Writing Gig". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "Survivor champion John Cochran has followed through on his pledge to become a writer in a big way. ... Cochran, who studied law at Harvard, first revealed his plans to forgo becoming a lawyer and instead pursue writing during Survivor’s live reunion show, which aired May 12."

    4. Ross, Dalton (2021-02-02). "Survivor Quarantine Questionnaire: John Cochran explains why he will not play again". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "John Cochran did not stand a chance in hell of winning Survivor: Caramoan, and I told him exactly that right before the game began. After all, who in their right mind would want to align with the guy after he betrayed his entire alliance by refusing to go to rocks in the recently aired Survivor: South Pacific, ensuring not only their destruction but his own. So, naturally, after being told there was no point in even going out and playing, not only did Cochran go and win Caramoan, but he did so in epic fashion—completing a perfect game with zero votes cast against him all season while also receiving every single jury vote for the win."

    5. Jackman, Tom (2013). "Oakton's John Cochran wins 'Survivor' show, and $1 million". The Washington Post. ProQuest 1353218261.

      The article notes: "In Oakton, John Cochran was watching from the start, as a 13-year-old in 2000, and he calls himself a show superfan. Now, he is a part of Survivor history. Cochran, 26, won the 26th season of the show (there are two per year) in a live ceremony announcing the winner in Los Angeles last week. The episodes were filmed last year on Caramoan in the Philippines, where Cochran had to eat nasty things and do all the other physical and mental torture tests required of the contestants. He collects $1 million for his troubles. Cochran also competed in season 24 in 2011 but did not win."

    6. Wong, Tony (2013-08-16). "Survivor winner John Cochran goes from Harvard to Hollywood". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "It’s not hard to pick Harvard law graduate John Cochran out of this Louboutin-heeled crowd. He has played the role of fish out of water all his life. On Survivor, he used that to spectacular effect, winning a million dollars in May in a script seemingly lifted from Revenge of the Nerds. ... Some people may be surprised to learn that the ultimate outsider is now part of the Hollywood dream factory, closer to cool kid status as a writer on The Millers, a new CBS sitcom ... But Cochran proved to the world that the most important muscle is the brain. (Naturally, he won the Dean’s Scholar prize at Harvard for his essay on the quirks of Survivor’s jury system.)"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow John Cochran to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources #1 and #2 seem to be more about (promoting and verifying notability of) the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself, IMO, despite those article happiness. (Per Cunard's reply below and WP:SIGCOV. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Source #3 significantly covers him as the Caramoan winner. I admire your quoting the excerpt about his educational life, but the source mentions it like a summarization of his cover letter or something like that and mentions post-Survivor writing career like a mere resume in prose.
I already explained why I discounted source #4 as a primary source, didn't I?
Source #5 still does the same thing as source #3. Source #6 doesn't convince me why his Harvard background (and essays)... or his career writing for short-lived series and a Star Trek animated series is worth visualizing and teaching readers about him. Rather it still verifies his notability as a Survivor winner. George Ho (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sources being more about "the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself", Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources each provide significant coverage about John Cochran. The 2015 article in Deadline Hollywood and the 2017 article in Variety are in reputable publications. They are not promotional sources. They are independent reliable sources. The third source provides significant biographical coverage about him in The Hollywood Reporter, another reputable source. The fourth source contains non-interview content so is not merely a primary source. The author provides commentary and analysis about what the subject did on the show. The fifth and sixth sources provide further biographical background about the subject.

The sources were published in 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2021 and cover both his appearances on Survivor: South Pacific and Survivor: Caramoan and his writing career on other shows like The Millers and Kevin Can Wait. There is enough sustained coverage about the subject to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and to demonstrate that the subject does not fall under WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. WP:BLP1E says "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." The sources show that Cochran is not being covered only in the context of a single event. Cunard (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, those publications are highly reputable. Well, I'm trying to find a policy or guideline that can help me refute your argument about reliability of sources being sufficient, but no such luck yet.
Regarding the sources being more about "the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself", Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources each provide significant coverage about John Cochran. Struck my comments about sources #1 and #2. Still, I dunno whether they verify his notability as a writer as much as his post-Survivor activities themselves, IMO. But I'm not gonna argue further about those sources.
The fourth source contains non-interview content so is not merely a primary source. The author provides commentary and analysis about what the subject did on the show. Well, every questionnaire that Dalton Ross wrote does, but that even non-notable contestants were given similar questionnaires, like Gabon winner (AFD) and Island of the Idols winner (AFD).
The fifth and sixth sources provide further biographical background about the subject. Not all articles, if not "not everything", should be included/preserved in the project, ya know? To put this another way, even so, I can't help wonder whether his pre-Survivor background should suffice to verify his notability. Even non-notable contestants have their own backgrounds.
Oh crap, I'm not supposed to compare too much, am I? George Ho (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources about his writing career and the extensive coverage in reliable sources about John Cochran's appearances on Survivor are enough for him to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Regarding "every questionnaire that Dalton Ross wrote does, but that even non-notable contestants were given similar questionnaires", that does not exclude the source from contributing to Cochran's notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The Entertainment Weekly is an independent reputable source and Dalton Ross is a reputable journalist. His analysis and commentary about John Cochran contribute to demonstrating notability. Dalton Ross's coverage about the other contestants gets those contestants closer to passing the notability guideline but may not be enough to establish notability if there are not other sources that show those contestants do not fall under WP:BLP1E. Cunard (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced by Cunard's arguments and by the sources identified. Thanks. Therefore I would suggest to Keep this. -Mushy Yank. 15:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Resolved

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Washington,_D.C.&oldid=1278314875"