Talk:Kelli Martin

Notability

Columbus Alive, Columbus Dispatch, and Bravo (US TV channel) are all notable media outlets, and of course the articles from these sources represent multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources independent of the subject. DickClarkMises (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable sources don't convey notability by inheritance, only if they themselves state that the subject is notable. They may be WP:RS (and so are usable for WP:V), but this alone doesn't mean that any mention by them conveys WP:N.

Consensus on wikipedia seems to be that contestants on reality TV shows aren't inherently notable, unless they're either notable for some other reason, or their involvement with the show becomes notable (they win, they behave in a notably appalling way etc.). In this case, the subject is alleged to be notable because of their previous career. Is this so, and do these sources convey it? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Andy, it isn't clear to me that consensus has been demonstrated either way with regards to reality show contestants. WP:REALITY has never gained community support, so far as I am aware. As I argued at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_24, "the subject of this article clearly meets the WP:BIO standard for notability, which is as follows: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This standard is readily met in this case. I don't see how any effort to delete will advance the encyclopedia. This seems like an example of a number of editors saying "I don't like it." As per that essay, I would request of editors favoring an AfD nom (or the ugly notability template) that they cite some actual policy or guideline chapter and verse so we can avoid talking past each other. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be advocating reasons (of arguable strength) why this person is notable as a contestant, when the much stronger argument is that they were selected to be a contestant because of their previous achievements as a fashion designer, achievements which would also and clearly make them WP:N. So sourcing needs to address the second point, not the first.

It's also trivially obvious that any mention by "[being] the subject of published secondary source material" only confers notability if it was also the intention of that mention to convey notability. Being listed there solely as a contestant doesn't convey any more notability than WP:REALITY already conveys, nor does repeating it. If one of these claims prior notability outside the show though, that's something in addition. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am arguing that this person is notable because she has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources. I don't know what it means to say that a "newspaper" printed something that they didn't think was notable. If a newspaper runs an article, that seems to me an obvious, de facto statement as to the newspaper's opinion of the subject's noteworthiness. If multiple newspapers run multiple articles on the same subject, which is the case here, I think the argument that those newspapers don't believe the subject of non-trivial coverage to be notable is absurd. Newspapers report on things and people that they think are notable. These articles are not paid obituaries or other such newspaper content that would potentially raise your concern. If we were talking about an obituary or wedding announcement--something that isn't asserting the notability of the individuals getting hitched or buried--I would agree with you. That isn't the case here. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I should also mention that I don't agree with your artificial division of her design career and her involvement in Project Runway for the purposes of weighing notability. Her involvement in Project Runway is clearly a noteworthy part of her design career. Two of the sources cited in the article related to her work in fashion predate her involvement in that television program. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am arguing that this person is notable because she has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources.
Then you've failed to understand the distinction between WP:N and WP:V.

I don't agree with your artificial division of her design career and her involvement in Project Runway
Then you've failed to understand WP:REALITY and the notion that merely being a contestant alone isn't WP:N. This certainly applies to "I'm a Celebrity, get me out of here" shows. If you're only notable because you're pictured in Hello! magazine, you're not notable (You're a 'Slebrity in today's society, but thank goodness WP hasn't sunk to that level).

I honestly don't know if this person is notable. Four of your six refs (not #1 or #2) weakly assert notability for her past career, but not clearly so or in a particularly notable manner. On the whole I believe she is, but mainly on the third-hand notion that the producers of the show thought she was sufficiently so as a designer. I've not seen her work. The cited refs don't give much impression of it as anything special. Doing it since 2000, went to a well-known arts / design college along with the rest of their class, now they have a small shop / market stall / eBay(!) outlet? That's half of my friends! - and with far more distinctive designs too.

As I said, I think she's notable, on balance. But it's on past achievements alone, and those are only lightly demonstrated here. A future AfD (which won't come from me, but many might) could claim it on either WP:REALITY (it's not defensible) or on WP:BIO/Artisans and crafts people not being adequately shown (it would be stronger with more evidence). How about some photos of her work, for one thing?
Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:N and WP:V are not unrelated. You've apparently failed to read the notability guideline nutshell summary, which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." You keep citing WP:REALITY as if it had not been rejected by the community. Please note that appeals to WP:REALITY are not citations to community policies or guidelines. Your opinion of Martin's work seems to me to smack of WP:OR and also WP:OSE. Your opinion of her work or its significance doesn't have anything to do with her notability for our purposes here, although I agree with you that she is notable from a combination of her past work and her participation on the Project Runway program. If you have access to examples of her work, I think images would be a great contribution to the article. I am unaware of any free images of such, but I've emailed Martin asking her to release an image from her website into the public domain so we can use it here. (I know GFDL would be okay too, but I prefer to ask for PD since it allows for the broadest, least hindered use of the content, here and elsewhere). DickClarkMises (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To quote WP:N yet again, "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Re-stating that she's on a reality show is trivial. Even if it's published in Hansard. Sources that claim to indicate WP:N must be stating soemthing more than this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, "trivial" coverage would be her name being mentioned in a list of contestants. If they run a standalone article solely about her as a feature, that is not "trivial coverage." The "significant coverage" standard is about the nature/extent of the coverage, not whether a particular fact related in the source is a notable one in your opinion. The fact that she has participated in a reality show doesn't make her less notable. The article cites four different newspaper journalists who have written substantive articles about this person. From WP:N: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. The coverage only needs to provide enough information to write a short, verifiable article. The article in its current form is short, but I wrote it entirely from the sources cited. I would say the existence of the article in its current form is evidence that the sources were adequate to write a "short, verifiable article." DickClarkMises (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)