Talk:Famous for being famous

[edit] VFD Designation

I strongly oppose the nomination of this article for deletion. This is an article about a cultural trend which, while mentioned in other articles already existent, had no article of its own.--Ensrifraff 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you cited some sources supporting what is now your original research on "people famous for being famous", it would be appropriate. Basically, it looks like you just thought it up yourself, rather than used reliable sources to create it. It's not a speedy deletion candidate, but it's not exactly following policy either. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For instance, your description of Anna Nicole Smith doesn't really make a strong case for her "undeserving fame". She was a Playboy Playmate... unless you're insinuating that all models are "famous for being famous". Leebo⁸⁶ 02:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes she was a Playboy playmate, however her fame for being famous went well beyond that. Most Playboy models never become famous. Additionally on the November 8th edition of Countdown with Keith Olbermann she was referred to as "famous simply for being famous" meaning that the term has been attributed to her.

It may be true that the average Playboy model is not particularly famous, but I don't really think you can justify calling the Playmate of the Year for 1993 "famous for being famous". She began her Playboy career as the result of entering a search contest, not through her billionaire boyfriend, so that's not something directly contributing to her initial fame. Leebo⁸⁶ 05:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I guess the problem I have is that this basically designates all models (people famous for their physical beauty) as "famous for being famous," which isn't what I understood the meaning to be. Where do you draw the line between a model who is famous for modeling and a model who is famous for being famous? It's a pretty sloppy line, I think, and not something that has been discussed in the scholarly manner necessary for sustaining an encyclopedia article. Leebo⁸⁶ 05:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. In the case of Anna Nicole Smith her later fame had little to do with the fame she found as a Playboy model. She is one of the most frequently cited examples of someone who is famous for being famous.--Ensrifraff 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm unclear on the process by which one determines how much a person's fame is the result of a certain event in his or her life. It's all opinion, and like I said, a sloppy definition. I don't disagree that people referred to her that way, but the article should focus solely on documenting how people use the term, not trying to figure out if someone "deserved" to be famous or not. Leebo ^T/C 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting this page? No way! "Famous for being Famous" is a common term in conversation in the media and a page about is appropriate. Also, there is no clear-cut line for who makes the list. Some may have been actresses or singers with debatable talent (Paris, Anna Nicole) while others were just attached (Ozzy's family) but they all deserve inclusion. Wikipedia does not aim to be a copy of a real encyclopedia, things like "famous for being famous" belong here but not in Britanica. -Jon in California

It's not our job to debate a celebrity's talent, that would be original research for me to say "I think this celebrity is not very talented, so they must just be famous for being famous." Even when people in the media use it, it's just an opinion. Leebo ^T/C 11:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not a fictional character is a Mary Sue is also subjective, but that does not mean we shouldn't have a page on the (quite notable) concept. The solution is simple: only report on the basic concept (which is pretty much covered already), and on who has been labeled [i]in notable media[/i] under this concept, as well as notable parodies (like the South Park episode). Duh. It's what we always do with this kind of thing. I honestly don't understand why people always inevitably argue over this kind of article, as it always ends up either messing up a perfectly decent article, or just ending with the same NPOV "include it if they become known as it in notable media, otherwise exclude it" construction that every other decent article on a subjective concept has. 63.21.31.87 05:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How and why is this article a stub? There's only so much you can say about some things. Zebraic 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)