Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogi Ogas (2nd nomination)

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 Keep (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 17:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ogi Ogas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is, essentially, a WP:BLP1E. The only significant coverage relates to the subject's appearance on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, where he used cognitive science to work out the answers; however, he did not actually win the $1,000,000. He later competed on Grand Slam, but he didn't win that either, and there's very little mention of it in reliable sources. In 2009, he was involved in a controversy with fanfiction writers on livejournal, but there's no reliable sources about that either ~~(I removed the section)~~. Virtually all the coverage here is related to his Millionaire appearance, with no evidence of long-term notability; I think he therefore qualifies for deletion as a WP:BLP1E. Robofish (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is misrepresenting some of the material he or she removed: the part about the livejournal controversy included a sourced statement that he had signed a six-figure book contract. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, really? I didn't see any reliable independent sourcing there, but I've restored the section for the purposes of this AFD. If you're referring to the Publishers Marketplace link, I can't read it as it's behind a paywall. Robofish (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article may stylistically focus on his appearance on Millionaire as a contestant, that is not the only event for which he is notable. Regardless, there are sufficient sources presented to satisfy WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that his actual accomplishments seem a little slim, but that's not the standard we should be working with here. Someone is notable if they have been noted in reliable sources, regardless of our own opinions of the importance of their accomplishments. By that standard he clearly passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close call. I don't think Ogas is really notable for anything other than Millionaire. Had he never appeared on the show, I am morally certain there would be no article about him. Despite this, John Carpenter is basically a BLP1E also. I understand the argument to distinguish 1 million dollar winners from 500,000 dollar winners, but with some other sources the article seems just okay. Chutznik (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once a topic is notable then it is always notable. Once an entry passes WP:Notability is always does so into the future, so it stays in. There are enough sources here to establish that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, could use some more info in the article.--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Chris[reply]
Keep per notability and coverage for more than just one thing. If the nominator is concerned about the current article being narowly focused, that's a reason to expand the focus... not delete the article. WP:ATD anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:51, 1 February 2010 (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.