1036:, 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.
21:
848:
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.
389:. 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. --
1064:
921:
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
494:
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
587:
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
737:
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
254:
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.
1031:
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
325:
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
667:
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?
847:
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
658:
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
272:
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
559:
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
42:
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
954:, "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."
643:
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.
968:
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
71:
131:
746:, 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
564:. 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.
957:
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. --
113:
597:
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.
238:
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. --
95:
101:
1083:
125:
28:
478:
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.
317:
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
138:
for examples. This really needs to be regulated, as there is vast confusion all over
Knowledge at the moment about if a RTV star who did not win is noteable or not.
353:
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."). --
83:
89:
758:. 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
615:
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? --
107:
175:-Entertainers: Only the the winning participant in a reality television show is deemed notable. Or some such better written. It's simple and unambiguous.
830:
659:
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
119:
77:
65:
885:
I also agree with Mr.Z-man, Kevin Murray, Jeepday, and IvoShandor. Increasing the number of notability guidelines will only cause more confusion,
922:
about the show. (Of course, there may be exceptions, some reality-show participants become highly notable, no one for example would deny that
973:'s talk page. Second, it has been said that this is an attempt at prescriptive legislation, which in general doesn't work on Knowledge; read
863:
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
528:. Also, a workable definition of "reality show" is needed for this guideline -- and maybe it should be "reality TV competition" instead? --
393:
381:
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
1074:
1056:
951:
750:. The only way we could prove the controversial aspect is if it was referred to in secondary sources, in which case they would pass
823:
If they are on a "Celebrity" Reality TV show, then they have already done something to be famous (why they are called a celebrity)
1093:
150:
and some other things that the guideline states, as they have all been on a national TV programme watched by millions of people.
798:
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
430:
318:
244:
181:
640:
636:
403:
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
782:
679:
1098:
1045:
1018:
1001:
962:
932:
899:
877:
852:
842:
813:
788:
722:
695:
684:
653:
619:
606:
592:
570:
554:
532:
516:
489:
473:
451:
435:
418:
368:
357:
348:
330:
296:
259:
249:
225:
195:
186:
163:
51:
496:
893:
already sets a relatively clear standard for inclusion of biographies; I see no need to establish a separate guideline. —
799:
291:
281:
538:
286:
60:. I disagree, there has been endless debate over if these types of people are noteable or not, just see -
1041:
322:
1033:
707:
but does so by the fact they participated in a RTS they should be excluded when if they had archived
268:
I don't have a problem with this becoming a guideline but the only related comment I do have is that
762:
before the show. Also, with the number of non-major network reality shows (like some of the ones on
1052:
428:
242:
179:
872:
867:, but I do agree that number 4 and 5 are clearly pointless. Also what about winners of shows like
1078:
978:
927:
826:
778:
674:
567:
529:
500:
404:
354:
327:
959:
947:
905:
Agreed with Kevin Murray, Mr. Z-man, above mentioned, and whoever else said this was needless
895:
875:
864:
808:
717:
692:
616:
589:
484:
457:
446:
413:
390:
386:
382:
256:
192:
48:
1037:
835:
646:
599:
561:
547:
525:
509:
466:
341:
218:
156:
1088:
906:
849:
739:
588:
guidelines should mirror the findings at AfD, but please no new prescriptive rule-sets. --
461:
365:
269:
142:
does not essentially explain this in detail, for example - all participants have recieved
44:
537:
Regardless of how many times something is on, its plain to see the difference between a
660:
425:
239:
234:(ec) Well, I meant that the only way for a reality television contestant to be notable
176:
154:
does that mean that each and every RTV contestant ever deserves a
Knowledge article?.
1015:
1006:
However does this mean consensus will not change without further discussion, or that
974:
970:
914:
890:
795:
771:
759:
751:
743:
701:
669:
628:
275:
172:
139:
72:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Adria
Montgomery-Klein and Natalie Montgomery-Carroll
943:
923:
803:
747:
712:
664:
479:
441:
408:
910:
868:
767:
763:
755:
440:
What makes reality TV show winners any different then any other TV show winner?
1032:
many projects - Entertainment (Britains Got Talent), Music (X-Factor), Sports (
754:
anyway. 7 is also pointless; "vast media coverage" is pretty much a summary of
326:
article would also qualify under the text of clause 6. Is that the intent? --
691:
Notwithstanding your lead sentence, you make a case for adhering to WP:BIO. --
209:
205:
542:
504:
213:
191:
I would support this if it is representative of recent consensus at AfD. --
1084:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 2 § Knowledge:15MINUTES
635:
is one of many clauses that make this out. Although, does that mean that
521:
1063:
700:
So Dale (16:04, 25 August 2007) are you implying that if a person meets
339:
I would disagree, none of those above have done anything controversial.
495:
up to 3 months, not including the time on spin-off programmes such as
204:
Although, some non-winners are noteable, so that is redundant - see
132:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Karen O'Neil Ganci (2nd nomination)
1081:. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
424:
No, it talks about reality TV shows -Big
Brother, Survivor, etc.
26:
To discuss issues with specific biography articles, please go to
913:, we even have some sub-suggestions as to bio-specific ones at
705:
The person has been the subject of published secondary sources
633:
The person has been the subject of published secondary sources
566:
I'm trying to make general suggestions to improve it, btw. --
313:
This is an attempt to change, rather than codify, the current
15:
456:
A reality TV show has one winner a year, game shows such as
114:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Chris Sligh (2nd nomination)
738:
remember them. Numbers 4 and 5 are pointless; if they pass
96:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Stephanie
Edwards (singer)
364:
I think this is a good idea and needs to be implemented.
1069:
889:
clarity, and make AfD discussion even more convoluted.
507:. We are talking about reality TV here, not gameshows.
102:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Brandon Rogers (singer)
1077:
to determine whether its use and function meets the
926:
is notable. But there's plenty of sourcing on him.)
794:
I have to agree with Mr.Z-man a person either meets
29:
Knowledge:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
499:and so on. There is a vast difference between the
126:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Karen O'Neil Ganci
631:makes out that all RTV contestants are noteable,
709:being the subject of published secondary sources
148:been the subject of published secondary sources
909:. We have a very good notability guideline at
84:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Haley Scarnato
90:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Gina Glocksen
8:
711:by any other means they would be included?
524:is on twice a year occasionally, same with
108:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Chris Sligh
831:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jack Tweed
120:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Will Wikle
78:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jack Tweed
766:), there may even be winners who are not
66:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Aisleyne
58:Support creation and use as a guideline
7:
273:music-related reality shows such as
47:is not justified by the benefit. --
14:
952:Knowledge:Policies and guidelines
464:have up to 314 "winners" a year.
1062:
871:, needs more clafication Thanks
19:
1087:until a consensus is reached.
38:No reason for another guideline
1019:20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
1046:18:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
800:Knowledge:Notability (people)
376:
497:Big Brother's Little Brother
377:Dale Jenkins' List (AKA: DJ)
1027:Reviving Guideline Proposal
1002:11:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
963:06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
933:03:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
900:02:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
878:23:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
853:18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
843:18:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
814:18:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
789:18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
723:17:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
696:16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
685:16:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
654:16:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
620:15:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
607:15:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
593:15:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
571:17:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
555:15:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
533:14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
517:14:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
490:14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
474:13:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
452:11:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
436:03:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
419:03:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
394:20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
369:09:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
358:14:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
349:13:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
331:04:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
297:20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
260:20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
250:19:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
226:19:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
196:19:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
187:19:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
171:Why not just add a line to
164:19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
52:19:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1114:
1099:18:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
950:. From the explanation at
946:has tagged this pages as
1075:redirects for discussion
1057:Redirects for discussion
977:for an explanation why.
939:The proposal is rejected
539:reality television show
255:Tough to legislate. --
503:genre and that of the
407:for 35 years qualify.
1008:consensus is clearly
1034:The Ultimate Fighter
1079:redirect guidelines
1073:has been listed at
1070:Knowledge:15MINUTES
1053:Knowledge:15MINUTES
319:The Skofield family
827:Chantelle Houghton
641:all 24 people here
637:all 22 people here
501:Reality television
405:The Price Is Right
931:
840:
812:
781:
721:
651:
604:
552:
514:
488:
471:
458:Supermarket Sweep
450:
417:
346:
295:
287:AnemoneProjectors
223:
161:
35:
34:
1105:
1072:
1066:
998:
996:
994:
992:
990:
930:
841:
839:
806:
777:
774:
715:
682:
677:
672:
652:
650:
605:
603:
553:
551:
526:The Amazing Race
515:
513:
482:
472:
470:
444:
411:
347:
345:
289:
224:
222:
162:
160:
144:a large fan base
23:
22:
16:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1096:
1068:
1060:
1029:
988:
986:
984:
982:
980:
941:
834:
772:
735:
680:
675:
670:
645:
598:
546:
508:
465:
462:Deal or no Deal
433:
401:
385:not to mention
379:
340:
247:
217:
184:
155:
40:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1111:
1109:
1092:
1059:
1049:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
940:
937:
936:
935:
883:
882:
881:
880:
857:
856:
855:
817:
816:
734:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
689:
688:
687:
661:Anthony Hutton
656:
623:
622:
610:
609:
595:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
565:
519:
438:
431:
400:
397:
378:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
366:♪♫Alucard 16♫♪
362:
361:
360:
334:
333:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
263:
262:
252:
245:
229:
228:
199:
198:
182:
136:
135:
129:
123:
117:
111:
105:
99:
93:
87:
81:
75:
69:
62:
61:
39:
36:
33:
32:
27:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1110:
1101:
1100:
1095:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1067:The redirect
1065:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1026:
1020:
1017:
1013:
1011:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1000:
999:
976:
972:
967:
966:
965:
964:
961:
955:
953:
949:
945:
938:
934:
929:
928:Seraphimblade
925:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
903:
902:
901:
898:
897:
892:
888:
879:
876:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
851:
846:
845:
844:
837:
832:
828:
824:
821:
820:
819:
818:
815:
810:
805:
801:
797:
793:
792:
791:
790:
787:
786:
785:
780:
775:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
732:
724:
719:
714:
710:
706:
703:
699:
698:
697:
694:
690:
686:
683:
678:
673:
666:
662:
657:
655:
648:
642:
638:
634:
630:
627:
626:
625:
624:
621:
618:
614:
613:
612:
611:
608:
601:
596:
594:
591:
586:
585:
572:
569:
568:ArglebargleIV
563:
562:wikilawyering
558:
557:
556:
549:
544:
540:
536:
535:
534:
531:
530:ArglebargleIV
527:
523:
520:
518:
511:
506:
502:
498:
493:
492:
491:
486:
481:
477:
476:
475:
468:
463:
459:
455:
454:
453:
448:
443:
439:
437:
434:
429:
427:
423:
422:
421:
420:
415:
410:
406:
398:
396:
395:
392:
388:
384:
370:
367:
363:
359:
356:
355:ArglebargleIV
352:
351:
350:
343:
338:
337:
336:
335:
332:
329:
328:ArglebargleIV
324:
320:
316:
312:
311:
298:
293:
288:
284:
283:
278:
277:
276:American Idol
271:
267:
266:
265:
264:
261:
258:
253:
251:
248:
243:
241:
237:
233:
232:
231:
230:
227:
220:
215:
211:
207:
203:
202:
201:
200:
197:
194:
190:
189:
188:
185:
180:
178:
174:
170:
169:
168:
167:
166:
165:
158:
153:
149:
145:
141:
133:
130:
127:
124:
121:
118:
115:
112:
109:
106:
103:
100:
97:
94:
91:
88:
85:
82:
79:
76:
73:
70:
67:
64:
63:
59:
56:
55:
54:
53:
50:
46:
37:
30:
25:
18:
17:
1082:
1061:
1055:" listed at
1030:
1009:
1007:
979:
960:BenBildstein
956:
944:Kevin Murray
942:
924:William Hung
918:
896:Black Falcon
894:
886:
884:
860:
822:
783:
776:
736:
708:
704:
693:Kevin Murray
665:Pete Bennett
632:
617:Kevin Murray
590:Kevin Murray
402:
391:Kevin Murray
380:
314:
282:The X Factor
280:
274:
257:Kevin Murray
235:
193:Kevin Murray
151:
147:
143:
137:
57:
49:Kevin Murray
41:
1038:Pound4Pound
869:Fear Factor
836:Dalejenkins
764:Fox Reality
733:Unnecessary
647:Dalejenkins
600:Dalejenkins
548:Dalejenkins
510:Dalejenkins
467:Dalejenkins
342:Dalejenkins
323:Jen Whitlow
219:Dalejenkins
216:and so on.
157:Dalejenkins
1089:Ivanvector
919:Especially
865:WP:PORNBIO
850:IvoShandor
387:WP:CRYSTAL
383:WP:ILIKEIT
210:Jon Tickle
206:Jade Goody
45:rule creep
543:game show
505:Game show
426:Flyguy649
399:Game show
240:Flyguy649
214:Ray Quinn
177:Flyguy649
1016:mike4ty4
1012:the idea
948:rejected
773:Mr.Z-man
740:WP:MUSIC
522:Survivor
432:contribs
315:de facto
270:WP:MUSIC
246:contribs
183:contribs
1010:against
873:Jaranda
861:support
804:Jeepday
768:notable
713:Jeepday
480:Jeepday
442:Jeepday
409:Jeepday
975:WP:PPP
971:WP:BIO
915:WP:BIO
891:WP:BIO
887:reduce
825:, see
796:WP:BIO
760:WP:BIO
752:WP:BIO
744:WP:BIO
702:WP:BIO
629:WP:BIO
541:and a
173:WP:BIO
140:WP:BIO
1094:Edits
981:: -->
907:creep
748:WP:OR
1042:talk
997:<
911:WP:N
829:and
809:talk
779:talk
756:WP:N
718:talk
676:adin
671:Gung
663:and
639:and
485:talk
460:and
447:talk
414:talk
321:and
285:. —
279:and
236:only
802:.
742:or
152:But
146:,
1097:)
1091:(/
1044:)
1014:?
917:.
859:I
838:|
833:.
770:.
649:|
602:|
550:|
545:.
512:|
469:|
344:|
292:会話
221:|
212:,
208:,
159:|
1051:"
1040:(
995:t
993:n
991:a
989:i
987:d
985:a
983:R
811:)
807:(
784:¢
720:)
716:(
681:♦
487:)
483:(
449:)
445:(
416:)
412:(
294:)
290:(
134:,
128:,
122:,
116:,
110:,
104:,
98:,
92:,
86:,
80:,
74:,
68:,
31:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.