Talk:Jon Gosselin

Hello. Notability. With all the worthy info that's been chased out of Wikipedia, this page really needs to be gone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.227.195 (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redir for lack of notability

At this time, Jon Gosselin has done nothing aside from Jon & Kate plus 8. I have redirected the article to that until someone can come up with information on him that is not from a tabloid, and not related to the show. This is not a judgment about Mr. Gosselin, however there is almost nothing out there that supports his notability separate from the show. If you are recreating this page, please be sure to include citations of things he has done that are not related to the reality series. --Thespian (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between Gosselin and Richard Hatch? I'm "unredirecting" this, as the subject of this article doesn't fall under the WP:ONEEVENT criteria, as Thespian seems to allude to above. Unitanode 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use use the argument that other stuff exists to support inclusion of this article. Richard Hatch actually passes WP:BIO with flying colors while Jon does not easily pass it. I'm not saying an article can't be created, but simply saying he's the dad of these kids and he's getting divorced do not establish notability. Sorry. --13² 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His actions have had wide coverage, in a wide variety of media. I simply used Hatch as an example of someone notable mainly for what they did on one reality show. Unitanode 20:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how "dad of eight, got caught cheating, getting divorced" pass WP:BIO? Also, if an edit you make is reverted, it is best to come DISCUSS and gain consensus, otherwise you appear to be edit warring. I will not reinstate the redirect until tomorrow and will only refrain from reinstating it if the article has been substantially changed. As it is, it does not pass WP:BIO, not even by a long shot. --13² 20:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting is a major step, especially when an editor has stated their intent to work on the article. Also, your reasoning doesn't hold up, as he's not just a "dad of eight", he's a reality television personality. Please take no rash actions, as there's no compelling reasons to redirect this page right now. There are no WP:BLP concerns, and the subject has been widely covered by a number of reliable sources. Unitanode 20:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing WP:BLP with WP:BIO. The article may pass BLP, but it does not pass BIO. You need to show how the article passes BIO. Being a "reality television personality" isn't a requirement. --13² 21:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE

I believe this article goes above and beyond what our standards require. (BTW, you should know that WP:BIO is just a redirect to the notability standards.) From the first few lines of the page:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published^[1] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,^[2] and independent of the subject.^[3]

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.^[4]
Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

The article, even as it stands right now passes these tests. After further expansion, it won't even be close. Unitanode 21:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
^ Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. ::"Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.
^ Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.
^ Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.

Expand Article

He was also on the show American Chopper. But thats pretty much all I can think of. Both Jon and Kate's articles have nothing other than their crap lives and they both published a book(s) and are stars of their own reality show. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[note2-1] What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.

[note3-2] Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. ::"Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

[note4-3] Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.

[note5-4] Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]