Wikipedia talk:Notability (Reality Television participants)

No reason for another guideline

There is no reason for another guideline. Notwithstanding some arbitrary criteria of multiple participations (2 is multiple), and a subjective criteria of "controversy", this is just a restatement of BIO, with some unnecessary examples. The harm of more clutter and rule creep is not justified by the benefit. --Kevin Murray 19:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support creation and use as a guideline. I disagree, there has been endless debate over if these types of people are noteable or not, just see -

for examples. This really needs to be regulated, as there is vast confusion all over Wikipedia at the moment about if a RTV star who did not win is noteable or not. WP:BIO does not essentially explain this in detail, for example - all participants have recieved a large fan base, been the subject of published secondary sources and some other things that the guideline states, as they have all been on a national TV programme watched by millions of people. But does that mean that each and every RTV contestant ever deserves a Wikipedia article?. Dalejenkins | 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add a line to WP:BIO-Entertainers: Only the the winning participant in a reality television show is deemed notable. Or some such better written. It's simple and unambiguous. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this if it is representative of recent consensus at AfD. --Kevin Murray 19:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although, some non-winners are noteable, so that is redundant - see Jade Goody, Jon Tickle, Ray Quinn and so on. Dalejenkins | 19:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, I meant that the only way for a reality television contestant to be notable only for having participated in the show is to win it. Obviously if a person satisfies some other requirement for notability and then fails to win the reality TV show, they are still notable. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it is not redundant since BIO states "one or more" to qualify, so they make it by the exisiting BIO conditions or by winning a contest. Although this is a simple critieria, it may be a bit arbitrary since a mere contestant on a major show may be more notable than a winner on a minor show. Tough to legislate. --Kevin Murray 20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with this becoming a guideline but the only related comment I do have is that WP:MUSIC says a performer or band is notable if they have "won or placed in a major music competition", which should be changed to just "won" (unless they satisfy other criteria) - I brought it up there once but nothing happened, so this proposal would cover that. This is obviously in relation to music-related reality shows such as American Idol and The X Factor. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt to change, rather than codify, the current de facto consensus about the notability of reality competition contestants. Nothing wrong with that, but it should be noted. BTW, under this guideline, one could assume that The Skofield family and Jen Whitlow would qualify for articles under clause 1, eh? Also, considering that nearly every one of the American Idol final contestants receive hefty US media coverage during (and at least for some time after) their stay on the show, it seems that many of the disputed articles in the list at the top of this article would also qualify under the text of clause 6. Is that the intent? -- ArglebargleIV 04:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree, none of those above have done anything controversial. Dalejenkins | 13:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, instead of clause 6 I meant the current clause 7 ("The subject or his/her actions received vast media coverage outside of the TV programme."). -- ArglebargleIV 14:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea and needs to be implemented. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Jenkins' List (AKA: DJ)

After reviewing the list provided above, I can see why DJ is pissed and rightly so. The rules of BIO are being ignored and it's all about WP:ILIKEIT not to mention WP:CRYSTAL. I really think that the admins closing some of these need to be called on the carpet. It's not a problem with the guidelines so much as the lack of following what we have. AfD should not be a popularity contest. Sadly policy at WP is supposed to mirror the customs not proscribe, and the prevalent customs are to keep non-sourced article on these minor celebrities. --Kevin Murray 20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game show

So the argument is that if you win a game show your are notable? Would that be just recent shows or do all the winners of the The Price Is Right for 35 years qualify. Jeepday (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it talks about reality TV shows -Big Brother, Survivor, etc. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes reality TV show winners any different then any other TV show winner? Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reality TV show has one winner a year, game shows such as Supermarket Sweep and Deal or no Deal have up to 314 "winners" a year. Dalejenkins | 13:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this would only apply to TV shows that have one winner per year? I refer to "TV Shows" in general rather then "Reality shows" as the later is subject to interpretation. Jeepday (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that, can you imagine if there was an article for every single person who had won the top prize on every single game show? They would all be useless stubs, as they appeared on one episode of 30 minutes length. Most reality TV winners have appeared on television every night for 1 hour for up to 3 months, not including the time on spin-off programmes such as Big Brother's Little Brother and so on. There is a vast difference between the Reality television genre and that of the Game show. We are talking about reality TV here, not gameshows. Dalejenkins | 14:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor is on twice a year occasionally, same with The Amazing Race. Also, a workable definition of "reality show" is needed for this guideline -- and maybe it should be "reality TV competition" instead? -- ArglebargleIV 14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how many times something is on, its plain to see the difference between a reality television show and a game show. Dalejenkins | 15:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's clear to you. Me too, actually. Be careful with statments like "A reality TV show has one winner a year", though. Furthermore, if you want your proposed guideline to be at all useful, it would help to be specific enough to prevent at least the simplest forms of wikilawyering. Furthermore, is your proposed guideline intended to cover reality TV or the smaller subset of reality TV competitions? Your guideline says "reality television", but your rules apply to competitions only.
I'm trying to make general suggestions to improve it, btw. -- ArglebargleIV 17:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't see why a new guidline would be ignored at AfD any less than the present guidelines are ignored. There is no need for a further guideline, but more need for Admins to enforce the current standards at either WP:BIO or WP:N. Either the behavior at AfD should mirror the guidelines or the guidelines should mirror the findings at AfD, but please no new prescriptive rule-sets. --Kevin Murray 15:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the reason I proposed this guidline is to clear-up the confusion and end the debates at AfDs and WikiProjects about if non-winning contestants of Reality TV programmes are noteable or not. Dalejenkins | 15:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Dale, how does it help if the participants at AfD are already ignoring guidelines which if enforced would have resulted in the conclusion you sought? --Kevin Murray 15:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO makes out that all RTV contestants are noteable, The person has been the subject of published secondary sources is one of many clauses that make this out. Although, does that mean that all 22 people here and all 24 people here warrent their own individual articles? No, it does not. I suggested this guidline in order to end all confusion at these AfDs about these types of people, and hoping that all AfD closing nominators will be familliar with this guideline before closing debates. Dalejenkins | 16:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this proposal is a good idea, but I don't see why winning a reality television show should automatically entitle someone to their own page on wikipedia. If the winner has or had any kind of notable career outside of the show, then they should get their own page. Otherwise they are no different to all the other contestants in my opinion. Any extra information on these contestants could be included in a 'list of contestants' page. Take Anthony Hutton and Pete Bennett for example, most of their stuff after big brother contains personal appearances on shows such as Big Brother's Big Mouth or BBLB. All contestants appear on those shows, why is it necessary to put it in their articles? Could it be because they haven't really done anything else worth mentioning? Gung adin ♦ 16:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding your lead sentence, you make a case for adhering to WP:BIO. --Kevin Murray 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Dale (16:04, 25 August 2007) are you implying that if a person meets WP:BIO The person has been the subject of published secondary sources but does so by the fact they participated in a RTS they should be excluded when if they had archived being the subject of published secondary sources by any other means they would be included? Jeepday (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary

This whole proposal seems unnecessary to me. Reality TV contestants are just not special enough. I don't like criterion 2: "The subject has appeared on two different Reality TV programmes." That gives little to no indication of notability. What if they came close to last in both shows? Nobody would remember them. Numbers 4 and 5 are pointless; if they pass WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO, then they are notable. They don't need to pass multiple notability standards to get an article. Number 6 is almost irrelevant too. We can't decide if what they did was "controversial" or not, that would be WP:OR. The only way we could prove the controversial aspect is if it was referred to in secondary sources, in which case they would pass WP:BIO anyway. 7 is also pointless; "vast media coverage" is pretty much a summary of WP:N. If they are on a "Celebrity" Reality TV show, then they have already done something to be famous (why they are called a celebrity) and probably already met WP:BIO before the show. Also, with the number of non-major network reality shows (like some of the ones on Fox Reality), there may even be winners who are not notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Mr.Z-man a person either meets WP:BIO or they don't. Participation or lack of participation in a TV show has no bearing other then for the items that are include in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Jeepday (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are on a "Celebrity" Reality TV show, then they have already done something to be famous (why they are called a celebrity), see Chantelle Houghton and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Tweed. Dalejenkins | 18:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is not needed, current guidelines and policies are enough. Just appearing on TV, at least in the United States, really isn't any big task, a lot of people do it, some for far more than three months or a year, there are newscasters, show hosts and other people of all types that probably don't meet notablility guidelines but we don't need separate guidelines for them, not to mention the last two criteria provide significant loopholes for OR. Either way, this is far too redundant to be needed, reality TV isn't anything too special that it needs its own criteria. By that logic we would need a notability guideline for hosts of low rated TV shows too. IvoShandor 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal with some edits. Reality tv participants are becoming more common here and a limit needs to be set, and it's no different than WP:PORNBIO, but I do agree that number 4 and 5 are clearly pointless. Also what about winners of shows like Fear Factor, needs more clafication Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Mr.Z-man, Kevin Murray, Jeepday, and IvoShandor. Increasing the number of notability guidelines will only cause more confusion, reduce clarity, and make AfD discussion even more convoluted. WP:BIO already sets a relatively clear standard for inclusion of biographies; I see no need to establish a separate guideline. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Kevin Murray, Mr. Z-man, above mentioned, and whoever else said this was needless creep. We have a very good notability guideline at WP:N, we even have some sub-suggestions as to bio-specific ones at WP:BIO. Especially when we're discussing living person bios, if it's not significantly and thoroughly sourced, it can't be an article, period. A lot of reality-show contestants are probably more suitable for presentation in "List of winners of _______" form, or for a show with few winners, mention in the parent article about the show. (Of course, there may be exceptions, some reality-show participants become highly notable, no one for example would deny that William Hung is notable. But there's plenty of sourcing on him.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is rejected

Kevin Murray has tagged this pages as rejected. From the explanation at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction." Also, "It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag."

In this case, there clearly isn't yet consensus about this proposed guideline. Kevin Murray seems to have taken it upon himself to conclude that this will not change with further discussion, either. -- BenBildstein 06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast :) There are two problems here. First, it has not been established that articles on "reality TV participants" do, or should, follow different rules than articles on people in general - in other words, this issue seems best discussed on WP:BIO's talk page. Second, it has been said that this is an attempt at prescriptive legislation, which in general doesn't work on Wikipedia; read WP:PPP for an explanation why. >Radiant< 11:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However does this mean consensus will not change without further discussion, or that consensus is clearly against the idea? mike4ty4 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving Guideline Proposal

I would like to revive this debate and attempt to get a workable guideline for Reality show stars. I feel the time is right again to restart these talks and sort out guide over what is considered notable when discussing this topic. Especially seen as this type of category can be spread out over so many projects - Entertainment (Britains Got Talent), Music (X-Factor), Sports (The Ultimate Fighter, among others. I reckon that the previously proposed table on the project page would definitely need updating and clearing up, as I have seen some of the comments above referring to some of the points in the table as redundant, though I do understand what the proposer was trying to say when adding those points to the table. Either way a detailed but clear system do need to be in place. If anyone has ideas on how to improve the table, or what to add to it, please share it on here. Pound4Pound (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:15MINUTES" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:15MINUTES has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 2 § Wikipedia:15MINUTES until a consensus is reached. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]