836:
227:. Being on the duration of Big Brother for 100 days which translates into about a 100 episodes is noteworthy. Even moreso is holding the record for being saved the most times by the public and generally being a popular public figure as a result. Tahan has attracted attention even before for her unique background and has been profiled in several newspapers for reasons unrelated to Big Brother. She is also the first person from the Northern Territory to make it to the finals of the Miss Universe Australia.
60:, but the article is almost entirely on her participation in the program. On the other hand, there is considerable coverage of her in the list. There is no clear consensus here but the compromise redirect option should satisfy most of the concerns because most of the content is already in the list article, while we at the same time we follow the usual precedent of not having a separate biography for participating in a reality program.
839:. As I said, even if I agreed with your assessment of the producer's intentions, that still would have no bearing on this discussion. The only "well known fact" here is that we use Knowledge's guidelines to determine notability, not the unverified personal opinions of editors. Arguing that an unknown producer's supposed preferences should be used as evidence that someone isn't
294:
notability or popularity anyway. There were 6 nominees each week this year, so Tahan had an 83% chance of being saved, as opposed to Big
Brother 2006 which had only three nominees each week and a 33% chance of being saved. Camilla's was a much tougher and greater feat, and she deservedly holds the record for this.--
480:(the suggestion here) surely doesn't apply to someone with an established modelling career, features in multiple magazines, televised appearances as a grid girl and articles in several newspapers who then goes on to feature (prominently) in a highly rated reality TV show. That the article needs work is a
943:
The concept of Big
Brother just further proves her total lack of notability prior. They wouldn't choose her if she was famous, because then she would be given an unfair advantage in the competition, people would recognise her immediately etc. It would hurt the show and the public image of the show if
789:
And the concept of Big
Brother isn't opinion. How utterly ridiculous! It's a well-known fact that they take unknowns. That's why they had a Celebrity Big Brother - to differentiate from the regular Big Brother that contains "ordinary" people. Ben was not a "regular" on the stand-up comedy scene. This
484:
sort of problem. "Significant coverage" does not mean "intellectual or academic significant coverage" - features in men's magazines (no matter how vapid or "lowest-common-denominator") still count toward significant coverage. She's probably the only one of the contestants this year who was "partially
685:
All of the non-Big
Brother sources are for NTNews.com.au, which appears to be a local newspaper, which significantly gives undue weight to any perceived notability. This is on par with an article on a local sport teams results or something like that. She had no prior fame. Some small-time modelling
1006:
of coverage. You're just not getting it and I'm done explaining it again and again. Your arguments for deletion here are entirely unconvincing, especially given they are based on personal opinion, not policy. That you don't seem to understand where the Zoo Weekly material came from speaks volumes.
834:
In citing the
Courier Mail piece about her and her mother you're acknowledging that your original claim about all sources being from the NT News was a falsehood, and you're confirming my suggestion that coverage in multiple sources (independent of her appearance on Big Brother) exists. Cover model
775:
Being realistic is not "downplaying" as you incorrectly put it. If anything, you're waaay overstating any sort of notability. The "other sources" that you refer to are not relevant. One is from a Bebo account of her sister. That has absolutely no place on a
Knowledge article. The other is talking
724:
is exactly that - your personal opinion - and there is plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary is actually true given Tahan was well-known in men's magazine and motorsport circles and Ben was a regular on the
Brisbane stand-up comedy scene. Even if it were true that the producers of the show
592:
I guess I'm not seeing it here. "Vapid" coverage can indeed be an indicator that it is trivial in nature; and while I am not positive that the multiple local stories on the subject aren't intellectually independent of the subject, they certainly are not intellectually independent of one another.
263:
Tahan also hasn't attracted attention prior to Big
Brother outside of some local newspaper articles which are very flimsy evidence to suggest any sort of fame or notability. "Several newspapers" is incorrect as it was one website that contained this information and was tabloid journalism - not a
719:
I think you've significantly misinterpreted that policy. That section is aimed at excluding gossip and tabloid rubbish and preventing someone from building an article only on tabloid sources. Neither the NT News or the
Courier Mail are tabloid sources and the articles from each certainly aren't
269:
I see no reason that this page should be kept as there is already a relevant page containing all of this information already. The only compromise I can see is merging the very small amount of extra info to the housemates page. If the actual winner of Big
Brother (Tim) that has had a prior media
921:
Yeah, she appeared on a cover - POST-Big Brother. A lot of female ex-housemates have. It's basically a tradition. It doesn't mean anything until it becomes a regular thing, e.g. Krystal Forscutt from BB06. I'd even say that it's in their contract to be allowed one Zoo magazine appearance after
275:
Also for what it's worth, I am a huge Big Brother fan and have followed every single episode and continued discussing the show since the season finished. I can tell you with absolute confidence that Tahan has basically been completely forgotten since Big Brother ended and has slipped back into
861:
And where did I mention the "Bebo source"? - that's total rubbish (both the source and your claim) and it should be removed (both the source and your claim). Lucky we don't rely only on the sources currently listed in the article but on what is available. Adding available sources is, again, a
293:
Also, the statement that she has the record for being the "most saved housemate of all-time" is incorrect. Camilla from Big Brother 2006 holds this record, so this incorrect statement should not be taken into account. Not that it even warrants a whole page being made for someone or proves any
627:
enough to justify one. There's plenty of argument that being on television every day for the better part of three months is more than enough "significant coverage" to justify an article but that argument with regard to reality television participants is usually killed off by
922:
they've finished as well, so by that logic you'd be creating pages for every single ex-housemate that had a one-off appearance on a magazine cover. Your whole argument relies on the idea that she was somehow notable before Big Brother. She wasn't. End of story.
701:. When you take away that information, there is nothing left for the article to stand on its own. The tiny amount of extra information can be easily merged with the description on that page. There is simply no reason why there should be a stand-alone article.
457:, at least not yet. At the very least, the unsourced copypasta that comprises the body of the article has to get in shape. Once it's gone, there isn't enough left for an article. The sources are superficial and are mostly about her role on Big Brother.
403:
I don't think you understand what intellectually independent means. It means the article isn't copied word for word from another article. And NT Times is not affiliated with the subject so for all intents and purposes it is independent of the subject.
691:
Big Brother selects housemates which people do not know about. That's the whole concept of the show. "Ordinary people" are chosen. These are all puff pieces designed purely from a promotional aspect and do not in any way represent actual news or any
944:
they chose someone famous after establishing the shows concept for TEN YEARS, so they certainly wouldn't risk that. The fact that she wasn't recognised until people started digging around for a few modelling gigs just proves my point even more.
619:. But that doesn't mean it isn't significant coverage. Insignificant coverage would be a passing mention of her in a list of grid girls. That's not what we're talking about here - we're talking about interviews and feature spreads in magazines
776:
about her mum, and is only a few paragraphs long. The absolute definition of a puff piece. Journalistic fluff. Appearing in couple of photos in a men's magazine are totally meaningless too. Cover model, she certainly ain't.
720:"tabloid style" articles. Feature spreads in national magazines are not "small-time modelling gigs" and your attempt to downplay things because they disagree with your personal POV is telling. Your personal opinion that
174:
254:. Being on Big Brother doesn't necessitate a whole article for any housemate, let alone one that didn't even win the show. All information about the housemates can be found here in a handy little article:
965:
The Bebo source was one of the very few sources listed on her page, so I just assumed you were including that with your argument. Sorry, if you weren't, but you didn't exactly make it clear now, did you?
377:. Several appear to be press releases, not intellectually independent of the subject. In any case, I am not seeing sufficient depth of coverage to merit a stand-alone article. As a reminder, neither
725:
favoured unknowns, that would still have no bearing on a discussion about notability here. That it would be a short article or even an article no longer that what exists elsewhere is irrelevant.
677:"Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
485:
notable" before her appearance. The additional coverage, prior to her appearance, gets her past the BLP1E issues that are usually problematic for reality TV participants, I think.
900:
The Courier Mail article wasn't about Tahan, it was about her mum, therefore it's irrelevant. All the relevant ones are from NTNews.com.au and they're all fluff and nothing more.
127:
310:
I've suspected as much that you are a Jade fan. The vigor with which you sought to remove the article is indicative. Tim should have a page, but it's not my duty to make one.
527:
168:
507:
547:
567:
205:
The person in question is not notable enough to warrant an entire page dedicated to them. The majority of information on the page has been copy-pasted from
264:
genuine, respected news source. These articles were written in a clearly promotional tone and aren't a proper representation of an actual proper newspaper.
134:
632:. In this instance, we're talking about BLP3OR4E. Even if we consider the pre-BB coverage in the NT News to be one source for the purposes of
1110:
598:
366:
255:
53:
637:
270:
career and is more well-known and well-liked than Tahan doesn't necessitate a whole page dedicated to him, then why does Tahan need one?
100:
95:
648:
be significant coverage. It's long-term coverage in multiple sources not connected to each other and about different events/issues.
104:
87:
17:
644:. I just can't see any way that we could consider 2008 Queensland coverage, 2012 NT coverage and 2013 BB-related coverage to
597:
seems to apply here - there is not enough verifiable information to significantly expand on the paragraph already written at
189:
698:
156:
206:
453:. She's not automatically notable because she has a recurring role on a television show. She doesn't appear to meet
1172:
40:
1049:
You fail to convince me whatsoever, therefore I'm "just not getting it". Nice cop out, but stay on topic please.
150:
409:
315:
232:
1083:
973:
863:
808:
706:
481:
345:
299:
284:
214:
1151:
1122:
1087:
1020:
977:
879:
856:
812:
762:
738:
710:
661:
610:
579:
559:
539:
519:
498:
466:
435:
413:
394:
349:
319:
303:
288:
236:
218:
146:
69:
1147:
1118:
450:
370:
91:
1168:
1079:
1013:
969:
872:
849:
804:
755:
731:
702:
654:
491:
341:
295:
280:
210:
36:
615:
By "vapid" I mean "not particularly intellectual", which is how I would describe coverage like that in
672:"Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Knowledge article."
196:
594:
382:
83:
75:
790:
was eventually proven to be false. At most he had a few amateur spots and was featured in a review.
405:
337:
311:
228:
182:
64:
462:
1143:
1114:
575:
555:
535:
515:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1167:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
623:
she ever appeared on Big Brother. We "muck around with a stand alone article" because she is
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1132:
1008:
867:
844:
750:
726:
649:
606:
587:
486:
431:
390:
162:
1078:
I've explained my points enough and I'll leave it up to the mods to make a good decision.--
629:
477:
258:. The page in question has literally copy and pasted the information from the above page.
276:
obscurity, further proving that any sort of so-called "fame" was very, very short-lived.
56:. I have considered the argument that the subject has notability outside the context of
378:
61:
633:
458:
454:
423:
374:
207:
https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Big_Brother_Australia_housemates_(2013_series)#Tahan
749:
is total rubbish, as evidenced by sources provided above and in the article itself.
636:(which is the accepted standard anyway) we still have to contend with coverage like
571:
551:
531:
511:
121:
1113:. Hard to find any decent coverage not pertaining to her Big Brother appearance.
697:
As I've said before, the majority of the page has been directly copy-pasted from
840:
624:
602:
427:
386:
616:
1135:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
681:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event
340:. I couldn't stand Jade. It's irrelevant who I like or dislike anyway.--
680:
385:
are good reasons to !vote to keep or delete a particular article.
1161:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
722:"Big Brother selects housemates which people do not know about"
1111:
List_of_Big_Brother_Australia_housemates_(2013_series)#Tahan
599:
List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2013_series)#Tahan
367:
List_of_Big_Brother_Australia_housemates_(2013_series)#Tahan
54:
List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2013 series)#Tahan
747:"All of the non-Big Brother sources are for NTNews.com.au"
449:
and redirect. The show is notable, but notability isn't
117:
113:
109:
843:
would have to be about the flimsiest argument of all.
256:
List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2013 series)
181:
1142:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
803:Your reasons to keep this page are flimsy at best.
373:and they do not meet the requirements outlined at
601:, so why muck around with a stand alone article?
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1175:). No further edits should be made to this page.
528:list of Television-related deletion discussions
508:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
195:
8:
566:Note: This debate has been included in the
548:list of Fashion-related deletion discussions
546:Note: This debate has been included in the
526:Note: This debate has been included in the
506:Note: This debate has been included in the
568:list of People-related deletion discussions
1007:This AFD is a waste of time and I'm done.
565:
545:
525:
505:
369:. I have reviewed the sources provided at
1002:Um... what? The subject need not be the
209:and doesn't need a separate article.
7:
24:
422:I'll go with the definition at
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1152:00:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
1123:03:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
1088:00:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
1021:11:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
978:01:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
880:10:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
857:10:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
813:10:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
763:07:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
739:07:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
711:06:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
662:08:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
611:02:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
580:16:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
560:16:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
540:16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
520:16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
499:12:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
467:10:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
436:02:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
414:09:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
395:09:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
350:09:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
320:08:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
304:01:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
289:08:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
237:08:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
219:07:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
70:10:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
426:rather than yours, thanks.
1192:
830:(Please learn to indent.)
1164:Please do not modify it.
686:gigs do not denote fame.
383:pointing out other stuff
252:(No need to !vote twice)
32:Please do not modify it.
745:Oh, and the claim that
837:Some would disagree
371:Talk:Tahan Lew-Fatt
48:The result was
1154:
831:
582:
562:
542:
522:
253:
67:
1183:
1166:
1141:
1137:
1017:
876:
864:WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM
853:
829:
759:
735:
658:
591:
495:
482:WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM
365:and redirect to
251:
200:
199:
185:
137:
125:
107:
65:
34:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1173:deletion review
1162:
1130:
1015:
874:
851:
757:
733:
656:
585:
493:
142:
133:
98:
82:
79:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1189:
1187:
1178:
1177:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1139:
1138:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
966:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
859:
832:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
768:
767:
766:
765:
742:
741:
714:
713:
694:
693:
688:
687:
683:
678:
674:
673:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
563:
543:
523:
502:
501:
470:
469:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
417:
416:
406:UpendraSachith
398:
397:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
338:UpendraSachith
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
312:UpendraSachith
291:
277:
272:
271:
266:
265:
260:
259:
240:
239:
229:UpendraSachith
203:
202:
139:
84:Tahan Lew-Fatt
78:
76:Tahan Lew-Fatt
73:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1188:
1176:
1174:
1170:
1165:
1159:
1158:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1140:
1136:
1134:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1080:TameImpalaFan
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1022:
1019:
1018:
1012:
1011:
1005:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
979:
975:
971:
970:TameImpalaFan
967:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
881:
878:
877:
871:
870:
865:
860:
858:
855:
854:
848:
847:
842:
838:
833:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
814:
810:
806:
805:TameImpalaFan
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
764:
761:
760:
754:
753:
748:
744:
743:
740:
737:
736:
730:
729:
723:
718:
717:
716:
715:
712:
708:
704:
703:TameImpalaFan
700:
696:
695:
690:
689:
684:
682:
679:
676:
675:
671:
670:
663:
660:
659:
653:
652:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
626:
622:
618:
614:
613:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
595:WP:PAGEDECIDE
589:
584:
583:
581:
577:
573:
569:
564:
561:
557:
553:
549:
544:
541:
537:
533:
529:
524:
521:
517:
513:
509:
504:
503:
500:
497:
496:
490:
489:
483:
479:
475:
472:
471:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
445:
444:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
411:
407:
402:
401:
400:
399:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
361:
360:
351:
347:
343:
342:TameImpalaFan
339:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
301:
297:
296:TameImpalaFan
292:
290:
286:
282:
281:TameImpalaFan
278:
274:
273:
268:
267:
262:
261:
257:
250:
249:
245:
242:
241:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:
222:
221:
220:
216:
212:
211:TameImpalaFan
208:
198:
194:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
144:Find sources:
140:
136:
132:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
72:
71:
68:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1163:
1160:
1144:SarahStierch
1131:
1115:Doctorhawkes
1106:
1014:
1009:
1003:
873:
868:
850:
845:
756:
751:
746:
732:
727:
721:
699:this article
655:
650:
645:
641:
620:
492:
487:
473:
446:
362:
247:
246:
243:
224:
204:
192:
186:
178:
171:
165:
159:
153:
143:
130:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
835:she ain't?
692:notability.
588:Stalwart111
379:being a fan
169:free images
58:Big Brother
617:Zoo Weekly
336:Incorrect
1169:talk page
866:problem.
572:• Gene93k
552:• Gene93k
532:• Gene93k
512:• Gene93k
451:inherited
62:Sjakkalle
37:talk page
1171:or in a
1133:Relisted
1107:Redirect
1010:Stalwart
869:Stalwart
846:Stalwart
752:Stalwart
728:Stalwart
651:Stalwart
630:WP:BLP1E
488:Stalwart
478:WP:BLP1E
459:Grayfell
128:View log
66:(Check!)
50:redirect
39:or in a
841:notable
625:notable
244:Comment
175:WP refs
163:scholar
101:protect
96:history
634:WP:GNG
621:before
603:VQuakr
455:WP:ENT
447:Delete
428:VQuakr
424:WP:GNG
387:VQuakr
375:WP:BIO
363:Delete
248:Delete
147:Google
105:delete
1004:focus
640:from
190:JSTOR
151:books
135:Stats
122:views
114:watch
110:links
16:<
1148:talk
1119:talk
1084:talk
974:talk
809:talk
707:talk
642:2008
638:this
607:talk
576:talk
556:talk
536:talk
516:talk
474:Keep
463:talk
432:talk
410:talk
391:talk
381:nor
346:talk
316:talk
300:talk
285:talk
233:talk
225:Keep
215:talk
183:FENS
157:news
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
1109:to
1016:111
875:111
852:111
758:111
734:111
657:111
646:not
494:111
197:TWL
126:– (
52:to
1150:)
1121:)
1086:)
976:)
968:--
811:)
709:)
609:)
578:)
570:.
558:)
550:.
538:)
530:.
518:)
510:.
476:-
465:)
434:)
412:)
393:)
348:)
318:)
302:)
287:)
279:--
235:)
217:)
177:)
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
1146:(
1117:(
1082:(
972:(
807:(
705:(
605:(
590::
586:@
574:(
554:(
534:(
514:(
461:(
430:(
408:(
389:(
344:(
314:(
298:(
283:(
231:(
213:(
201:)
193:·
187:·
179:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
149:(
141:(
138:)
131:·
124:)
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.