Talk:Kelly Wearstler

message: Whilst the fact that she was in playboy should perhaps not be excluded for this bio, care should be taken with undue weight being given to a minor part of her career, which is not the reason for her notability. Certainly infoboxes etc, based in passing appearances years ago, should be excluded.--Scott Mac 19:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no undue weight here at all, and the discussion at WP:BLPN did not agree with conclusion. While she may be notable as an interior designer, she is also notable as a Playmate. If you want to avoid WP:UNDUE concerns, the solution is to actually find well-sourced things to say about her career as an interior designer, not to keep the article as a perpetual 3-line stub. For all that everyone says that her Playmate career is a minor component of her fame, when I search for material on her, that is what keeps popping up.—Kww(talk) 12:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. You don't get to unballance an article in a way that may be prejudicial to the subject, just because you like big ...boxes, and then say, "someone else should rebalance this". That is NOT how we handel BLPs. As I've said at the BLP noticeboard "That she was in playboy is notable, and is rightly recorded in the article. However, glorifying it with a big box and breast measurements is clearly a breach of WP:UNDUE and the spirit of "do no harm" encapsulated in the BLP policy. She's an interior designer. She doesn't highlight here past appearance and neither should we. Especially not on the nonsense that of infobox conformity. Anyway, how is her breast size in 1994 relevant to anything? Can you verify that's here size now - 17 years later? Is this an important part of understanding her? There's no justification for this. We don't define someone who has a notable career by their appearance in some magazine 17 years ago - and their breast size then. Horrible, sexist and unfair to the subject".--Scott Mac 12:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not unbalanced. That's what you seem to be having difficulty with: her career as a Playmate is as or more notable than her career as an interior designer. She may wish it wasn't that way, you may wish it wasn't that way, but it is that way.—Kww(talk) 12:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: She's a world famous fashion and interior designer. I'm confused on how her fame as a fashion designer and an interior designer can quite possibly out weight the fact that she was Playboy of the Month once. Her clothing is sold at Neiman Marcus and the New York Times and New Yorker has covered her work. Sure, her Playboy "brief history" should have coverage, but, an infobox related to her stint in Playboy is absolutely undue compared to her prominent work and life as a designer. Here is an example. If you Google: "Kelley Wearstler" designer - you get about 282,000 Google results. If you Google: "Kelley Wearstler" Playboy - you get about 27,500 hits. She paid off her student loans by being a centerfold, and used a pseudonym to do it. There is no need for the special infobox, at the least, she should have a standard BLP infobox. SarahStierch (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have a trivia section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree with Sarah Stierch that Kelly Wearstler is "world famous" and certainly not world famous for fashion design. Concerning your statistics about googling her name, are you being disingenuous Sarah?  Try googling Kelly Gallagher with Playboy, which is the name she used when working as a nude model for Playboy Models, Inc.  You'll get over 690,000 hits to your quoted 282,000 for Kelley Wearstler" designer.  My objections to this article, however, is it's an advertisement and fan page.  By the way, as of 2/18/2014, none of her clothing was selling at any of the three Dallas Neiman Marcus stores I checked.  That's Downtown, North Park and Prestonwood.  After North Park said they weren't selling anything, I became curious and called the other two stores.TL36 (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Fred - I don't think we'll need one. I'm working on fleshing out the article. I generally try to avoid them, but, I think she's notable enough that we won't have to worry about one =) SarahStierch (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the use of the Playboy Playmate infobox is not appropriate here since she is more notable for her professional career. Kaldari (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you define notability by what most people recognize you for, Kelly is still best known for her work as a Playboy model in print and videos under the name Kelly Gallagher.  That might change in ten years but for now, that's the situation.TL36 (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight