Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Michael


 * 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 default keep, see also Articles for deletion/Bradley Baumkirchner. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Keith Michael
delete realitycrufts. Unnotable designer, but who was the first person to be given a dishonourable discharge from the contest for cheating. No notability beyond Project runway. "Keith Michael" + designer scores 44200Ghits of which 541 unique. Of these, the overwhelming majority were Blog entries, and a few articles where the show or the incident was the primary subject. His website is a long way below radar with an Alexa rank of 2,178,220. Ohconfucius 07:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 07:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - "and a few articles where the show or the incident was the primary subject." How does that not satisfy WP:BIO? He may not be the most important person, but he seems to be important enough. --Daniel Olsen 13:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, he is not notable for being on tv show. If it is so damn important that he was kicked, then write about it under the tv-shows entry or the reality show entry. Lundse 20:31, 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 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Flying Jazz 03:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TomPeters 21:11, 5 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.