User talk:Dina/Workshop/Reality Television Characters

Couple comments

Couple thoughts off the top of my head.. 1) reality shows are a type of game show, for our purposes. Yes, they typically run longer with the same contestants, so yes, there's a higher likelihood of the people involved being covered by proper sources, but for our purposes all these people generally fall into the category of "people you may have heard of due to their TV appearances as a contestant on a show." 2) doesn't WP:BIO pretty much already cover this? If someone has sufficient sources about them, they may qualify for a bio article. As a general rule, most sources talking about them are discussing them only in the context of the show - (there are exceptions if someone becomes well-known outside the show.) So, most of the content about these people would be a good candidate for merging into the article about the show. Friday (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"For our purposes," a reality show shouldn't be considered a type of game show at all. They are not structured the same, they are not promoted the same, they are not covered the same, they share little in common outside being on TV, having a host, and the winner having a prize. Meanwhile, for point two, WP:BIO does cover this, the problem is that people generally don't nkow how to read WP:BIO when it comes to reality television contestants. I know you and I disagree wildly on this issue, Friday, but I don't think I'm technically wrong on this. Perhaps there's a middle ground to be reached, but agreeing on the facts will help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No point arguing over 1, I think- these are "people you may have heard of due to their TV appearances" but who are not actors. My point is that whatever coverage they have almost always is about that one TV show they were in. Compare this to a TV actor who often would have been talked about in sources due to their work in many shows. I don't see how someone happening to be a reality show contestant would contribute to WP:BIO being misread - it's coverage in reliable sources that counts. I can't say I'm confident in your reading of WP:BIO tho due to your own statement that you probably meet those requirements yourself due to being interviewed for a couple articles. It's non-trivial coverage we're looking for here. Friday (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well sometimes I've encountered the argument that the third-party non trivial sources must cover the person's accomplishments outside the show, which has always seemed a little unduly rigorous to me. I'm working on the assumptions here that fan-blogs don't count, and New Yorker profiles would (if applicable.) But of course, most reality TV people don't appear there. So what about something like this :New York Blade article about Jeffry Sebelia. Is that good enough? (I'm worried that this will come off as snarky and argumentative, but I really would like to here from editors of all opinions, so please understand that any relentless questioning is quite sincere.) Dina 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not take a joking statement on my userpage as evidence of anything, please. My reading of WP:BIO is entirely literal: Bios independent of the subject? Check. Multiple non-trivial coverage? Check. Name recognition? Check. Cult following? Sometimes, check. That's where the difference lies with, say, the 7th contestant on The Price is Right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)