User talk:Ohconfucius/Discussion on notability

So, actually it seems that we all have some reservations about an "idol" contestant achieving notability through the same route as other subjects would achieve notability (the "multiple independent reliable published sources...", etc). Lets try to come up with exactly what about this situation is different so that we can propose some additions to the notability guidelines. What do you think? Sancho McCann 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be open to ideas. I think the problem you raised is actually an interesting one. Sources articles which you refer to may sometimes appear to be reliable and non-trivial. However, at some stage in the process, that marketing, promotional, and advertorial stuff becomes engrained in the grey matter and crosses over into the stuff sources are made of. Knowing quite when that takes place is not always easy. Tabloid press being what they are, I admit it is not always easy to judge the difference, and I have fallen for it quite a few times. But for pop idol and Big Brother, for example, I have relatively few doubts. Unlike someone who had only a #78 chart hit, the average unsuccessful contestant in a Reality TV prog is "here today, gone tomorrow" Ohconfucius 04:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be just the fact that this subject was a failed reality show contestant that makes us reluctant. Is there a more general way that we could distinguish subjects that would also fall into this category of having to meet stronger notability requirements than is currently required by Wikipedia guidelines? Would we want to suggest this -- that there is a class of subjects that need stronger notability requirements to be met? Or do we want to suggest strengthening the requirements in general? Or maybe something else altogether? Also, I might have missed something and the subject just fails the notability requirements as they stand. Sancho McCann 07:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO
FYI: WP:PORNBIO is currently being re-written, principally due to the realisation that relying on the crude (sic) number of films, instead of on biographies published in reliable sources, is arbitrary and dubious at best. In a way, I see the criterion possibly as arbitrary as the "released two or more albums on a major label" clause in WP:MUSIC. Having said that, the majors' unforgiving line to commercial failure of the first album may mitigate this.

For our discussion, let's start with WP:BIO, and see if we can find any failings: also relevant are the following notes: Note 3: ''Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. The existence of a memorial (e.g., a named chair at a university) is not a substitute for depth of content in published work.'' Note 4: ''All of these criteria are in fact simply special cases of the general primary criterion of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. A person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.'' Let's consider what our respective reservations are about losing contestants:
 * Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
 * Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
 * A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
 * An independent biography
 * Name recognition
 * Commercial endorsements
 * WP:BIO states someone is considered notable if "..television personalities who have appeared in well-known ... television productions". So by being a contestant, one is a TV personality, but not necessarily notable. Thus people are not notable just because they have appeared in a well known TV production. I have not come across anything which has convinced me the contestant is anything more than a prop in the TV show. Principally, they are not actors (even they themselves would probably admit to that), and are not "hired" in any meaningful sense, although they may aspire to be both. Contestants are lured by the prospect of stardom and perhaps some financial reward to Game shows, which have been around for almost as long as TV, and their longevity is related partly to their performance, but principally to their ability to maintain the show's ratings. There may be the odd exception, but game show winners are hardly ever notable.....
 * 1) Is our hesitation because they did not win first second or third place in the contest, or in spite of it? Starting off with awards: winning "a major award or in some cases placed second in a major competition" is deemed a notable act for performers. It is now established that the reality shows are considered on the same footing as other major competitions, thus their winners would by definition be notable. Not winning, or being placed second, therefore is a failure to mee this one of many possible criteria.
 * 2) do contestants have a route, other then the broad confined of WP:BIO to be deemed notable? In the case of ANTM, Project Runway, the broader confines of WP:BIO apply, but there are specialised publications for the fashion industry, so we know what "reliable sources" are. For Pop Idol or Star Academy contestants, WP:MUSIC extends (and defines in fairly objective but not necessarily "the correct") criteria of notability; there are also reference reliable publications for the entertainment industry. Ditto for The Apprentice, which could be covered by business publications such as Forbes, Business Week, The Economist.
 * 3) How about Fear Factor, Survivor, and Big Brother, which do not need any acting or other skill? These are potentially the one which would create the most problem. Wikipedia does not define which named sources/publications are "reliable", and merely lists the criteria them must conform to, so the onus is upon us to ensure that substance prevails over form. The subjects may be of most interest to Gossip type magazines, which wikipedia usually considers unreliable. I believe it would be correct to draw the line there.
 * 4) Whether I like them or not, the fact is that these shows are hugely popular. So perhaps we can explore how we can establish whether they, as individuals, have name recognition, a fan base or "cult" following, assuming now that no other criteria apply. Looking at the Ghits, there's certainly a lot of traffic on web forum and chat rooms where fans of a given series argue with one another as to who was "the best", and why. There are often numerous hits for photographs of same. However, biographically, none of these would ever conform to WP:RS. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right place, we don't hear anything about fan clubs for individual contestants who have not won the title, or have had less than one disc release, so we're back at WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 09:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Triviality
I think, basing my example specifically on the AfD for Ashley Leitao, that the "multiple non-trivial" aspect of WP:N is the important criteria here. Due to the popularity of the show, it will gain considerable press coverage. However, the the focus of these articles relates to the show. The eliminated contestant of the day is incidental, as the article would be the same regardless of who loses. Thus, I believe that the argument being presented in the Ashley Leitao AfD is invalid, as Ashley is not the subject of the article, but rather Canadian Idol is, and that her mention is incidental, making it trivial.

Of the seven references being listed in her article, three would fail based on my argument above, two fail as the mentions of Ashley truely are trivial, and one more would fail as the article is about a band that that fails WP:BAND. The last article is from a local paper talking about the local contestant. While it may pass WP:RS, it is only one, and I would suggest that this makes her no more notable than any local newspaper story about any local individual.

Or, to simplify greatly, even WP:N states that "[Notability] is not 'newsworthiness'." It also states that Notability is not popularity. These contestants are not notable for being contestants on a popular show.

Failing all this, I would suggest that WP:IAR strongly applies here. Resolute 15:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. Okay, so maybe we don't need a new criteria, but a clarification of what non-trivial means. The articles were deceiving to me because their title and their content looks like Ashley is the subject of the article. I didn't consider that perhaps this article would have been written the same way no matter who had lost. I think the difficult part will be nailing down what wording could describe that Canadian Idol is the subject and her mention is only coincidental since she happened to loose that day. We'll have to be able to separate that argument from one that says "articles that mention an actor are also trivial if the article wouldn't have been written but for her role in a new movie, and although the articles' focus seems like it is on the actor, it would have been written the same way no matter the actor that was in the movie, so its focus is really on the movie". I like your "would it have been written the same way" test, though.


 * I did look at the "notability is not newsworthiness", but the actual paragraphs are written in a way that suggests that this was meant to prevent stripping a subject of notability if the newsworthiness of the subject decreases over time. It is a notability preserving statement. The paragraph on "Notability is not popularity" might be where we can have some headway, though. Right now, it only emphasizes that notability is established through secondary source availability.


 * We should come up with a list of subjects X that we can use in a proposal like "if a person is the primary subject of an article, but only because of their association with subject X, that article is trivial". I would add "Reality show" to that list, but for some reason wouldn't add "Hollywood movie" to that list. Hmm... I know, we can always fall on WP:IAR, but if we're going to do the same thing for every failed reality show contestant, there seems to be a more general problem with criteria that we can fix. Sancho McCann 17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that "notability is not newsworthiness" is only half defined right now. While the stated intent is true, that a decline in media coverage does not automatically mean that notability is reduced as well, I would suggest that the opposite is true:  That appearing in the news does not automatically make one notable.  Afterall, there will be multiple, independent, reliable sources about any murder or other violent crime committed. Would the criminal be considered notable based on this poorly defined concept?  Personally, I do not think so.


 * I think that we can expand this concept to fit cases such as this. If an event will occur regardless of an individual's participation, then that event does not automatically declare notability.  An article about Canadian Idol will be written and published by the Canadian Press regardless, so losing in any given week does not prove notability.  Winning the show would, of course, still prove notability based on criteria for "winning a major award", etc.  Resolute 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all this great discussion. I came up with an idea after something that you wrote on the AfD for Ashley Leitao, Resolute. I introduced it for discussion at WP:BIO to see what the community thinks. Sancho McCann 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability established by news media
I found a guideline under construction/discussion at WP:NOTNEWS. Its scope is to establish the conditions under which mention in news media would establish notability of a subject. The discussion there has some interesting points, but it specifically says that it isn't intended to apply to people mentioned in the news articles. Sancho McCann 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)