Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Kardashian

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 Keep and cleanup. Avi 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kardashian

Non-notable daughter of notable lawyer. Being related to someone notable does not necessarily make that person notable. Page is also plagued by original research. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Josh Parris 04:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 05:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That's not WP:OR, that's a big honking pile of WP:BLP liability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good grief. This is another of those celebutantes - on one hand, she has been mentioned and her clothing sense dissected very frequently (ie. every other week for the past year or two) in People, Star Magazine, E! Talk, et cetera et cetera ad nauseam, but is any of that enough to make her notable? I haven't a clue. Neutral, I suppose. --Charlene 09:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt anyone in those magazines could be considered notable; National Geographic can do a study of Ehsdfjgfsk Fshfdkjasfd who lives in deep, dark Peru, but that doesn't make that person notable. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But if 86 different magazines do a study of Ehsdfjgfsk etc. 35 times each over a one-year period, is he notable? Even if you don't like Ehsdfjgfsk? I also don't think it's at all accurate or in the spirit of Wikipedia's stance against systemic bias to imply that someone living in "deep, dark Peru" is somehow less notable ab initio than an American (forgive me if that's not what you mean). After all, WP:ILIKEIT also covers WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. --Charlene 00:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I doubt 86 different magazines have done a study of Kim. There only appears to be one, and WP:NOTE specifically implies "multiple reliable published sources". Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Furthermore, I doubt any of the sources are in any way "reliable", nor encyclopedic. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she's being talked about all over the net and will get a proper article on wikipedia sooner or later. We need to improve the article not delete it. --81.247.186.244 10:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ILIKEIT. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too far removed from notability. MER-C 12:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She meets the primary criterion of notability, multiple and non-trival mentions in the press. There is already a link to an article about her by People Magazine and a quick google search reveals she's covered in plenty more news stories. Notability is not subjective. Ccscott 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the only reference provided in the article is the People magazine article. So the article itself only has one reference, not multiple references. Dugwiki 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct but it was trivial to see that multiple references exist on Google and Factiva. Regardless, someone has put some of those reference in saving me the time and the article now meets WP:N. Ccscott 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's all over the tabloids and is well-known enough for there to be an article on her, celebutante or not. There are kept articles on people with much less "notability" than she. Icemuon 15:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
- Please read WP:ILIKEIT. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, thank you, I have read it. I couldn't care less about Kim Kardashian, I'm certainly not voting to keep the article because I like her. As Charlene pointed out to you, please read it yourself. It also covers WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.
Keep as any other whose notability is limited to being in the tabloids, of which we must have a million on Wikipedia (or delete the others with her to make space) Alf photoman 15:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ILIKEIT. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She is claimed to be "in the news" without much by way of citation. Non-notable offspring could be mentioned in parent's article. Edison 20:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better references provided The only valid reference provided within the article is the People magazine bit (myspace pages unfortunately aren't considered reliable sources). As discussed in Wikipedia:Notability (people) the article should at a minimum have multiple non-trivial external references for verification. The above comments seem to indicate that the article could possibly be expanded with reasonable references and information, and if that happens I'll reconsider my recommendation. But as it currently stands, my suggestion is to delete as having insufficient references and information about the person. Dugwiki 21:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Charlene (above) if she is mentioned frequently in People magazine she is notable if not admirable. WP does not require importance, just being noticed in a non-trivial way. --Kevin Murray 00:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the People article, there are may other published works that are primarily about her. Here are just a few - [1] [2] [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=5&num=58931]. We might not care for the reason of her notability, but as other editors pointed out above, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article and Notability is not subjective. --Oakshade 01:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. She is notable as a celebutante, meaning she is a celebrity (who also happens to meet the primary notability criterion). She's not notable for being the daughter of a lawyer, as the nom suggests. schi ^talk 01:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not a catalog of E-list quasilebrities. /Blaxthos 07:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But per WP:BIO she is notable, whether we consider her "E-list" or not. --Oakshade 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's hot. But seriously, she's been getting a pretty fair amount of tabloid-style press lately (that's not necessarily a good thing). An up-and-coming Lindsay Lohan type, I fear. Realkyhick 09:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as sad as it is, she does seem to be a notable "celebrity", and as others have said there will probably be a lot more "news" about her in the coming months. Krimpet 06:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my ideal world, the media would've ignored her and used the space to discuss Darfur or our health-care system or some such. Wikipedia, however, compiles information on the real world, not my ideal one. JamesMLane t c 10:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge her with the Robert Kardashian article, if in the future she actually does anything of note then she will of course get he own page but ATM she's a non-entity. Kejoxen 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mulitple independent coverage - I don't care for attention whores, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't trump multiple reliable soruces providing verification. -- Whpq 17:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Just because she can strip to a magazine and fuck with anyone in entertainment business, and drink with Paris, doesn't have to work because her dad worked enough don't mean she's notable. If she releases an album like Paris (God, please don't do) or act in a notable film or do some charity work or whatever that is related to the verb DO than she can be re-created here like everything was done so on her body. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 12:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING doeesn't apply as WP:NOTE and WP:BIO are satisfied in this case. There are multiple published works about this person. Even WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING states "... that's why Wikipedia has established notability guidelines on what should be kept." The person satisfies those guildlines. And please remove the foul language. --Oakshade 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the references confirm notability, and the fact that she was on a magazine cover really seals the deal. Everyking 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worthy of inclusion as a notable fake celebrity, especially with the pending sex tape later this month. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per youngamerican. qwm 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is only notable because of the sex tape, (and her friendships) but after the furor dies down, that'll be that. I suggest that we merge her into the Paris Hilton article. -QuestionMark 16:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is mentioned routinely on Hollywood Gosip magazines and websites. Now she will be a notorious pornstar. If Pornstars can have pages, a celebutard turned Pornstar should certainly have a page. You may not like that she is a celebrity, but the fact is she is. Vivid didn't pay $1M for her sex tape because she was a nobody.
Keep Like it or not, quasi-celebrities like this are an unfortunate hallmark of American culture today.Randomjohn 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Page is plagued by original research" is an argument for improving the article and removing the OR, not for deleting the whole article. Kardashian is mentioned in many tabloid news sources and people will come to us to find out what the fuss is about; the article should be kept to make the encyclopedia more useful to our readers.AxelBoldt 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a wikipedia user, if I come to wikipedia to find information, I want it to be there regardless of whether or not the article is about a pathetic person or thing, the fact is that there is a place for knowledge here that we can't find elsewhere. I trust this encyclopedia a great deal for information that stands out above ordinary blogs and opinion rags, I appreciate the fact that when i read something in the news about someone whom i know nothing about, I can come here and learn something about them, even if they are useless people. Tinman8443 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel the same way about this article as Tinman8443. She might not be important or notable in the long-term, but Wikipedia serves as a good place to keep this kind of information available. Rageear 21:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are individuals with even less significance than her, with articles on wikipedia. Duhon 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Association with Paris Hilton and her own sex tape are quite significant. Definite keep. Andrew73 23:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A socialite with the same basic background as a Paris Hilton, She is mentioned in numerous celebrity gossip magazine and tv shows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.242.11.247 (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This is certainly not a space issue the page takes up a minimal amount of space. The issue of her notoriety is obviously resolved as per above. She is well known enough now that people will remember her and recognize her. Her notoriety is unlikely to fade with the impending release of her sex tape. With the tape itself being so high profile there can be no doubt that she will be well known for a while.Diemunkiesdie 03:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no problem with the article about her sister, Kourtney Kardashian, isn't it? Which is still a stub! --Vlad|-> 12:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because you don't like a certain person, or resent them for being famous and talentless, doesn't mean they shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Especially in light of the new Ray J sex tape, Kim is getting lots of tabloid play that should at least be mentioned in wikipedia.--Agnaramasi 16:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.