Talk:J. P. Calderon

Very well

Explain to me why this page is notable. Yes, he played volleyball in College. So? Yes, he was on Survivor, but a LOT of more notable players don't have pages. He's a model, so? Being a beginning model, even with a major agency, shouldn't be enough to warrant a page. -- Scorpion 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WHY? Hasn't this page been deleted yet? Agrippina Minor 1 February 2007

On notability

The subject of this article meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, having been the subject of multiple non-trivial published articles. Whether there are 100 other more notable Survivor contestants or a billion more notable people on the planet is irrelevant. Notability is not subjective. Either a subject is notable or it isn't and based on guidelines Calderon is notable. If you think there are other Survivor contestants who are also notable then feel free to write articles on them. Otto4711 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, because if similar articles have been deemed not notable enough, then it relates to this article. I'm currently getting opinions from other Survivor people, but this page will likely be nominated for deletion since you seem to be unwilling to merge it. I am open minded though and I'll listen to others. -- Scorpion 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If other Survivor people don't understand notability guidelines, then please refer them to WP:NOTE. If you believe the article should be merged (which is not the same thing as a redirect) then explain what article you suggest it be merged to and why. Otto4711 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, anybody finishing outside the final 4 at Survivor is not-notable unless they managed to cause a huge impression on people during their time there (and by virtue of only having been there 4 weeks and not doing much noticible, JD definitely doesn't qualify for that). The factoids about his volleyball "career" are completely trivial. And it remains to be seen how much exposure he'll get from the new modelling reality show he's on now. If, for example, he's dropped from it in the next week or two, then he was basically a minor character for a couple episodes and completely non-notable for that either. If he manages to stick around long enough to become a "main character" then perhaps he could be worthy of his own page. But from what I see right now, I'd support an AfD nomination on it. --Maelwys 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, my question again is, have you read WP:NOTE? "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." J.P. Calderon has been such a subject and therefore mets notability guidelines. How well he finished in the game is irrelevant. How long he lasts with the modeling agency is irrelevant. Otto4711 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As Scorpion said, it's only a guideline. But even if you insist on taking it as law:

• Survivor Profile: Fails "independant" because it has a vested interest or bias (they made money off of him being on their show)
• Model Profile: Fails "independant" because it has a vested interest or bias (they made money off of him being on their show)
• Sun article: Passes
• TV Guide article: Passes
• AVP profile: Fails "non-trivial" because it has very little valid information

So basically, I count 2 valid references for the purposes of Notability. Also, if you look at WP:BIO you'll find that JP fails any of the suggested criteria there as well. All in all, I believe that he's entirely un-notable at the moment, and that this article should be redirected to Survivor (or simply deleted). --Maelwys 22:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny that you would slag me with your snide little "take it as law" comment when you go on to cite WP:BIO. WP:BIO is also a guideline, not a policy. However, WP:BIO states that notability "is the central criterion for inclusion." You have pointed out that within the article currently you believe that for purposes of establishing notability there are two independent non-trivial sources. Two is "multiple" so by your own lights you should be in favor of keeping the article. There has been no policy argument advanced that supports the deletion of this article and one of the two people arguing against it (that'd be you) has conceded that it meets notability guidelines. So why anyone would continue to gripe about the article is a puzzlement. Otto4711 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was intentional. I was showing that if you want to look that seriously at guidelines, you had to look at all the guidelines. And no, I didn't concede that it meets notability guidelines. I showed that there were only two sources, but I don't believe that those two articles makes it notable. As per WP:NOTE:

• The "multiple" qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability.

There is no firm line where 1 = non-multiple, but 2 = multiple, or any other point. In my consideration, the two articles aren't notabile enough that those two articles alone make him notable. --Maelwys 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not my Zen master and I'm not Grasshopper. I don't need your little illustrative patronizing crap. If you feel like this article is such an egregious violation of Wikipedia policy (which, remind me, what policy is it that you're claiming is violated by this article? Oh that's right, none) then feel free to nominate it for deletion. I'm bored with your routine. Otto4711 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "illustrative patronizing crap" you're referring to, I apologize if I came off harsh or patronizing at any time during our discussion. But since it seems that we're not going to manage to come to any agreement here, I've listed it for AfD as you suggested, you can find it here. --Maelwys 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to wait for some opinions before nominating it, and I was hoping to convince this guy to give up peacefully without turning this into a weeklong headache, but so be it. -- Scorpion 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just a guideline, not a policy. -- Scorpion 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. What's your policy argument then? "There are 100 other Survivor players who are more notable" sure as sin has no foundation in policy. Otto4711 21:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

DELETE THIS OBSCURE PAGE! Agrippina Minor

Deletion

I absolutely agree with Agrippina Minor!!! Can someone nominate it for deletion. I honestly tink that it should be deleted not just about his poor performance on Survivor, but also the appropiate content that kids might be watching and reading about him. It's just not right at all. Feel free to address your opinions so that we can ensure a deletion to happen. Willbender 05:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "We must keep it if it has already survived an afd, so let's ignore all arguments" principal means that Wikipedia is forever doomed to have an article on this obscure nobody. It's a shame. -- Scorpion 05:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

First off read the 3 previous deletion discussions to see that he was found notable outside his Survivor appearance. Also please read WP:NOT#CENSORED as well it basically says that wikipedia is not censored for content. There are far worse pages out there for kids anyway. (Like the Ozzy article about his appearnce on Playboy TV.) Scorpion, No new arguments were brought up in either of the last two AfD's, and quite frankly you seem to be the one ignoring others comments. Just because he is not notable to you or I does not make him non-notable. EnsRedShirt 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the majority of keep votes in the final 2 afds were basically because it had previously survived. And, I cited several guidelines that said he wasn't notable. Plus, he has less google results that 15 other people FROM HIS OWN SEASON, including 2 voted out before him. And most of them didn't appear on 2 different TV shows. -- Scorpion 07:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's because you didn't say anything different, you rehashed the same arguments over and over. You completely ignored the fact that some people, like myself, said that notability could change, but at the moment he was notable. EnsRedShirt 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that the article had previously survived an AfD; it's that the article had survived an AfD less than an hour before its second nomination, and survived two AfDs within a month before its third nomination. There are lengths of time between nominations in which one could more reasonably expect a change in consensus. --Maxamegalon2000 08:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image policy

And I quote: "Examples of unacceptable use: An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then "fair use" may apply. " Meaning, covers can be used on the page for the magazine itself, but not of the person who is on the cover. All non-replacable fair use images are being removed from bio pages, so just accept it. -- Scorpion 16:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tell you what, if someone who hasn't demonstrated implacable antipathy toward this article decides to remove the image, why don't you let them handle it? Your history with this article is horrible, and you really ought to recognize that and not make changes to it that you know are going to be controversial.
• As to your interpretation of the guideline (note that it is a guideline and not a policy), it appears to be in error. If the magazine cover is used for no other purpose than to illustrate the article, it is unacceptable. However, if it is used to illustrate the magazine issue as a topic of the article, it is acceptable. In this instance, the magazine issue is notable as a topic within the article and is being used for that illustrative purpose. Otto4711 17:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jp01.jpg

Image:Jp01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Family

Is he by any chance related to Paul Johnson Calderon? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. P. Calderon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115014922/http://www.doronofircasting.com/casting/casting-closed-list-los-angeles-and-dallas to http://www.doronofircasting.com/casting/casting-closed-list-los-angeles-and-dallas

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)