Jump to content

Talk:Christina Machamer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Speedy Delete (Archive of discussion from 2008)
this section is a restored archive of previous discussion on this topic from June 2008
Please do not modify it

She won Hell's kitchen season four (a popular television show on FOX). That deserves a wiki page. Besides this page is brand new and is in the process of being worked on.Joetheduded (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been proven in WP land previously, merely being on (or winning) a reality tv show does not qualify a person to have a WP page. SpikeJones (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that user Discospinster has decided that this page does not qualify for speedy delete, as other reality-tv show winner pages have been handled. I have therefore nominated the article for AfD so we have official discussion on the topic of pages merely for being a reality-tv show winner. SpikeJones (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you checked the winners of the previous two seasons of Hell's Kitchen ( Heather West and Rahman Harper) both have Wikipedia pages. So there is precedent for this. Joetheduded (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2009

[edit]

There has been previous discussion as to whether this article is needed, as she hasn't proven herself to be encyclopedic-notable outside of being a reality tv contestant on a single season of a program. Please see previous AFD discussion for this page that is available at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Christina_Machamer, where the consensus was "redirect". If there is any change in this page from redirect to content, please make sure that the article addresses all points in the previous AFD - if it doesn't the article will either be reverted back to the redirect, or will be put back up for AFD discussion. SpikeJones (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As seen above per the Season 2 and Season 3 winners, both of their pages redirect to the pages for the seasons they were on. This page should continue to be no different. SpikeJones (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no precedent -- lack of other articles doesn't serve as proof of anything as per policy. It is merely the case that no one has yet to take the initiative. Redirects are for article subjects that can and are sufficiently documented in the redirect, which is not the case here. Winning this competition is one part of her notability, she is now an elite in her field as judged by Gordon Ramsey. She is or will be installed in his restaurant -- she's not a nobody after winning Survivor or The Amazing Race. The restaurant has already won a Michelin Star after being open for a few months, which would be a direct accomplishment for Machamer. I'm not saying everyone at the restaurant should get an article, but put everything together, and Machamer is notable. She is also the co-founder of BCBC Blends, a spice company. This is deletionism at its best (i.e. worst). DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being the co-founder of a spice company does not equal notability from an encyclopedic viewpoint. Winning the fourth season of a reality-TV show (and the prize with it) equally so. You need to establish notability from non-biased sources that are not referring to her TV show appearance. Otherwise, there is no reason for this page to exist on its own. SpikeJones (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The show has been her launchpad for fame and success, so of course everyone is going to mention it. If there is a new fresh celebrity face who is talked about everywhere and is interviewed by everyone and every source mentions his great movie and Oscar win, would you complain that everyone keeps talking about it? It's not like she got into the news because she was hit by a car one day. She's a celebrity -- maybe not like George Clooney, but a celebrity nontheless and now a very highly paid chef at a top Michelin rated LA restaurant. She co-owns a spice company and all together, that makes her notable. She appeared in the news as recently as the end of January 2009, 6 months after winning. Let's accept the independent sourcing and fact that she is a notable individual. This has nothing to do with the fact that the other two winners of the same show that began her career do not have articles. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reality TV contestant <> celebrity. You still need to prove notability from an encyclopedic viewpoint to have this standalone article exist instead of being a redirect. I'm more than happy to resubmit to AfD a 2nd time to get an updated consensus for you. SpikeJones (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An online, completely updatable encyclopedia can justify its articles notability based on different criteria than normative, printed encyclopedias. All of the sources I've included (except her autobiography used to establish objective fact like her hometown and her mentor's name location of employment) are independant sources backing Machamer's notability. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked, What do you mean by saying "contestant <> celebrity". You said earlier that winning the competition is one part of her notability, and then went on to say she was a celebrity. My comment was that appearing on a reality tv show does not equate to celebrity status. Very few reality TV contestants are eligible for a stand-alone article as they fail notability outside of their appearance on the program. SpikeJones (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But with what she received from her competition win, she is comparable to Miss America or Miss Teen USA. Yes, any given Miss Teen USA is a nobody that is then shot to the forefront of every glamour magazine and city daily paper. She gets spots on all the popular talk shows and gets invited to write blogs about all of it. She gets an apartment for a year in some Trump high-rise and goes around the world with Donald Trump and is at his side for photoshoots. She champions various causes and visits their celebrity-studded dinners and galas. All of this is only because she won some contest, but in the end, she is a celebrity because of it -- much like Heather Anderson, Meagan Tandy, Ashley Zais and hundreds others who possess articles documenting this fame and fortune. The fact that Hell's Kitchen winners are not as well recognized in Wikipedia is because Wikipedia is user-content -- there are far fewer Hell's Kitchen fans than there are fans of the Miss USA pageant. Additionally, the latter has existed since 1952 and its Miss Teen USA spin-of has existed since only 1982 but has undoubtedly succeeded in garnering such significant support because of Miss USA proper. What exactly are we arguing about? It's so petty to demand that everyone be as famous as Tom Hanks in order to gain recognition in Wikipedia. And although my own argument of article precedent may very well present itself against this facet of my argument, the fact that there are templates upon templates of state- and nationwide pageants and contests of girls who are famous and notable only within the fashion scrapbooks and glamour world makes a considerable case for Christina Machamer, as well as her predecessors, to have get the same recognition, despite Hell's Kitchen being a somewhat new phenomenon. I don't think it's fair to wait until it get's cancelled after 6 or 12 or 21 years before someone decides that the winners are notable in their field for winning a contest and then being shot into stardom within their field. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent for readability) Have you seen the Miss USA ratings lately? Wouldn't exactly call it a fan favorite currently.</joke> All I've been asking is that you review the commentary of the AfD consensus. Nothing has changed in Christina's notability level since then to warrant expanding the page. As you said earlier, the fact that other pages exist (or don't exist) for other reality show contestants is not a valid argument, so we can't use pages for pagaent winners as an example here either. For purposes of discussion, please explain how she qualifies per WP:BLP1E. The policy states If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted. Hence, the prefered redirect and/or merge options as stated in the AfD. SpikeJones (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much like the winners of these beauty pageants, Machamer has been chosen to host numerous food/wine tastings and other food-related events. Do you need that in the article to substantiate her notability, because they are essentially independant of her win, despite her being a choice of host only because she won -- that's why I compare it to Miss Teen USA. These girls are nobody until they win, and after then win, they are invited to host various things that need figurehead hosts that demand neither credentials nor ability beyond turning heads and garnering public ratings. Websites such as here, here, and here show that she has become at least such a celebrity. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to comment on her personal notability, but I voted to redirect because of a lack of sources, and there now seem to be sufficient secondary sources that that is no longer an issue. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, at the time of the AfD discussion I recommended merge & redirect since this article was at the time a single paragraph ([1]) that basically provided nothing that didn't fit better as a paragraph of Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 4). However, now that it has been fattened up into a page and a half with a fair number of sources, it probably works better as a standalone article. My take on whether content should be merged or standalone stems from the notability of the parent. Assuming Hell's Kitchen is notable, this content is worthwhile, and whether it is contained as a section of a parent article or as a standalone piece is purely a judgement of editorial style, not one based on the notability of Machamer herself, if that makes sense? --Stormie (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is: if nothing else is achieved by this person, will ANYONE outside of her family and friends know who this person is? If Hell's Kitchen is off the air for a few years, will anyone care that she won one season? No. But if she achieves more that makes her a "well known" chef, such as opening a famous restaurant, writing popular cookbooks, having a popular cooking show, etc., then this page would be justified. Until then, it's more of a MySpace page or personal webpage than something that should be on wiki... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.61.251 (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A great many people of lesser notability have articles on Wikipedia. At least for now, Christina Machamer is more well known than many Olympic athletes who do have articles. Some would argue that winning Hell's Kitchen is no lesser feat. Landroo (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article

[edit]
For discussion purposes, please describe the differences between what makes this article a notable addition (as opposed to being a redirect) vs the last version of the article for Rock Harper before it too was changed to a redirect to the main program article? Why would one article, with sources, be switched to a redir, when this article should be converted? SpikeJones (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps neither should be a redirect -- however, I did not feel the urge to pen an article on Rock Harper. When I did feel the urge to pen an article on Christina Machamer, I was unaware that a previously existing article on her had been redirected. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 05:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To SpikeJones -- please quit sabotaging efforts to make this article better. Citation format is not a prerequisite for citation validity nor do the citations as currently placed fail to specify what they cite. Additionally, parental information exists in personality articles such as Tom Cruise, James Earl Jones and Pete Sampras and so are clearly not irrelevant. Please abide by proper wiki etiquette and rules of civility and refrain from contributing to this article if you cannot do so in a constructive manner. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting that your citations be placed in proper cite format is certainly not unconstructive or sabotage. Using proper citations (a) make articles better, (b) make you a better editor, (c) help support an article's survival if its existence were to be questioned in the future. At no time have I been uncivil, either with my edits or with my talk page discussion here. SpikeJones (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree if you had made such a request --
"all references MUST be rewritten in appropriate WP:CITE format to remain valid"
--but you did not; it seemed more like a demand to change format or remove. Threatening citations with removal immediately after suggesting that they do not support the article in the first place smacks of sabotage -- if you stand down from apparent belligerence, I will stand down and rescind my accusations of apparent sabotage. Placing a tag that indicates citations do not properly provide inline citations is a far cry from being concerned over citation format -- that seemed like a veil to cover hidden intentions. Citations are proper; it may be that citation format is off, but then again, that's not nearly a prerequisite for their validity. I happen to dislike Wikipedia citation format that appears overly regulated and restrictive to the new user, and since citation regulation is not nearly as closely regulated as you make it out to be, threatening removal for lack of proper format is overly dramatic. If you can contribute by modifying the citation format, that would be both wonderful and certainly welcome -- it is not my place to exclude you for constructive editing. Have a great day! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing your edit history, you are not a new user; as such, adhering to WP:CITE policy should be second-nature to you - whether you agree with the policy or not. Adding the tag and an attention-drawing edit summary was done merely to point out that the citations need to be rewritten...and drew your attention it did.\ (if citations were removed or replaced with fact tags as being invalid refs, then you would have a case of my actions being incorrect). You have a vested interest in creating/writing this article whereas I was happy with the original redir, so I leave the citation rewriting program to you. As for your initial "this is deletionism at its worst" comment from the other day, not once did I say the article should be deleted. Merely that the subject was not notable and that it should continue to exists as a redir (with, perhaps, pertinent info being merged into the main article). As you have seen, I have backed off that stance other than to get consensus on whether overall policy has changed with regards to articles that were extremely similar in nature to this. SpikeJones (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you did succeed in piquing my interest a bit - so I did some research, and what I have concluded is that my citation format is not only acceptable but in conformation with Wikipedia policy, as follows:
"There are a number of styles used in different fields. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent."
and
"The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus."
In a sense, then, Wikipedia's citation policy merely demands that the proper and sufficient information be included in the citation, not that it meet any particular template format. I'm certain that you wouldn't have brought this issue up had you yourself not read the same policy regulation that I did and quoted from, and I hope you can see why it would seem to someone that you are out to sabotage this article. I'm not asserting that you are, but it sure appears that you are. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said, I'm not asserting that you are. Quite the contrary, you explicity said that you were accusing sabatoge. I acted in good faith completely, pointing you to where the article had issues per the previous AfD; suggesting that you need to continue to prove notability and offer proper citations (preferable in WP:CITE format to make it easier for all involved to see exactly what the citations are), backed off on redir discussion once the article cleared hurdles. All the while you became more and more defensive and placed an undeserved warning note on my talk page. Unless you have a completely different opinion of what the definition of sabotage is, this was far from it. I feel that we have come to the end of this discussion, so I will refrain from further comment on this topic. SpikeJones (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by "I am not asserting" was that I was no longer asserting -- after your claim of innocence, I was merely pointing out to you why one would perhaps think that you were. But alas, we have concluded. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth information

[edit]

Since when is partial birth information less informative than no birth information? If we intend to obtain and maintain comprehensive information on the many topics included in Wikipedia, we cannot expect to add such information only when all bits and pieces become available. It's not as though all we have is th3 13th of an unknown month! Month and day is just fine until a year is procured, which it will hopefully be soon. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "until a year is procured, which it will be hopefully be soon". Since you are expecting to have complete information, then don't add things piecemeal - wait until you have everything and add it at once. The article can wait for you to have it correct. It would similar to someone adding "DOB: March" and saying that they'll have the date eventually (or "DOB: 28" to exaggerate the other way). It's not worth it to be half-right when being all-right is coming soon.SpikeJones (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update for this article (2014)?

[edit]

I see that much of the information is out of date on this article, with most events stated "as of 2009." Does anyone have an idea of where to find verifiable information for this, as we are close to 5 years since these events? XxBollWeevilxX (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Christina Machamer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Machamer&oldid=1200522447"