Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayne Gillaspie


 * 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Kayne Gillaspie
delete realitycrufts. Designer well below average notability who was eliminated in an early challenge. No notability beyond Project runway. Scores 548 Ghits of which 243 unique. Of these, the overwhelming majority are where PR is the primary subject of the article and a fairly abundant number of Blog entries. Ohconfucius 05:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Per Project Runway (season 3), Kayne is still in the competition. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 08:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I take the line that reality show contestants are not inherently notable unless they are the winner and/or have some notability outside of it. Ohconfucius 08:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep: It is not the least bit obvious what the terms "average notability" or "inherently notable" mean, yet they are used by Ohconfucius to convey some kind of pseudo-scientific aura of justification. Reality shows done well are comedy / dramas. They are crafted to make us interested in the contestants for 15 or 16 weeks. They are in effect mini-soap operas. As such, winning is beside the point to the "notability" of those involved. Read the blogs on the show as people passionately defend the "good guys" or berate the "bad guys". Indeed, given that the producers do not need to worry about keeping fans interested in the same characters for year after year (as is the case in traditional television fare), they are freer to pump up the story lines and the resulting emotions. One can be a snob about all of this and think that notability should be something more than having hundreds of thousands of people wonder whether or not you are going to be eliminated on a TV reality show. But then you would just be a snob. Jdclevenger 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "average notability" applies to the Ghits. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding;
 * "inherently notable" means that the show is much more than the sum of its parts, and that while the show is certainly notable, the fact of having been one of the contestants does not necessarily confer notability, in much the same way that one is not notable by merely working in a successful theatre production or film, any other artistic work, or by being on the iPod development team. Ohconfucius 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - being on tv does not make you interesting in itself (and yes, Sean, very succintly put, who will care in a few years?). Lundse 20:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I am curious to know what evidence does Lundse have for his claim that 'being on TV does not make you interesting in itself'? As a matter of sociological fact (as measured by the volume of web blogs and entertainment magazines etc.) it seems that being on television is enough to make almost anyone interesting. 'Interesting' of course cannot mean interesting to just you or just me. But rather it means 'is of interest to large number of people'. It seems abundantly clear that those arguing for Delete rather despise Reality TV and are not themselves interested in it. Good for them. Ohconfucius makes this point expressly clear on his page. He has listed 1 Dislike: Reality TV. And clearly he has taken it upon himself to expunge it as much as possible from Wikipedia. But it also clear that there are plenty of people who tune in weekly to see the exploits of the people on shows like PR. Regardless of what else they accomplish in their lives, for 10 or 12 weeks they become very important to many people. As for whether or not anyone will care in a few years, that is completely beside the point. If the standard is that only the timeless and enduring can be in Wikipedia, I think we would have perhaps 17 articles. Part of the NPOV is that you have a consistent bar for entry. You cannot raise it for projects that you find banal, trivial, or uninteresting and then lower it for those you like. Finally, of course, even if Lundse is accurate in his claim, it does not apply in these cases. If the PR contestants merely appeared on the show and where never discussed or noticed by anyone, then there could be a case for saying that they're appearance simpliciter was not itself interesting. But that is not the case. There is plenty of interest in these people by people interested in PR. That may not be your interest. But that is irrelevant. Jdclevenger 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I am open about my dislike of Reality TV, but I try not to make bad faith deletions, or ones based solely on my likes and dislikes. I will admit that PR is unlike BB, as many of these indivuals have skill/talent and could be known for what they do outside the show and not just how they behave on screen. I try hard to be objective justify and evaluate deletions based on wiki policies and guidelines, and in applying the same methodology and research I have been using to support all my other decisions and recommendations, these contestants come up as delete recommendations. Ohconfucius 04:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you for the clarification. Jdclevenger 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * keep there is no reason why wikipedia should not keep a record of this sort of thing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. When Jdclevenger says "There is plenty of interest in these people by people interested in PR," that is a reason to delete. People should be of general interest to receive an encyclopedia entry or they should have made a notable contribution in a certain field.  Even if being on a reality TV show were a field, there would still need to be a notable contribution. Flying Jazz 03:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - As long as the information is not commercial, it is relevant and important to wikipedia. Beno1983 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Not only are such articles necessary for wikipedia to maintain its comprehensive nature, but Kayne is also certainly famous enough to warrant an entry. He has progressed as far in the competition as Nick Verreos did, who has gone on to do much more (and has his own entry), and the entire show is more high-profile this year than it was before. dizzilylizzily


 * Keep While Ohconfucius points out that "Kayne Gillaspie" has less than 1K Google hits, the search string 'Kayne "project runway"' has about 138,000 hits. Further, there are 101 articles for that search string in Google News.  I think he's notable and should be kept. xander76


 * Delete. Yes it does matter if the person will be utterly forgotten in five years. Wikipedia is not a collection of ephemera. No it doesn't matter that much if the person happens to be the particular body that crosses the screens of millions of  reality TV watchers. Notability is mostly about achievement, achievement recognized by one's peers or in some other meaningful way. I call on the closing admin to take note of the weakness of the Keep arguments. Herostratus 16:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Beating out other contestants to win a spot on a show such as this one is an achievement, no matter how frivolous it may seem to us.  Chancemichaels 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels


 * Comment 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.' This is a common sentiment of the Deletionists, suggesting that the possibility of future notabililty is not enough for current inclusion. I would suggest that it works both ways. Arguing that a current article be deleted because the person will be 'utterly forgotten in five years' is a crystal ball prediction. It may be true. It may not. Come back in five years and argue that no one cares about this. Jdclevenger 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.