Talk:Kelly Wearstler

Undue weight

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You could have a trivia section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Domino cover

Hi everyone! I have returned the Domino magazine cover from 2008 to the article. Kww removed it, under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8 which states Contextual significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.. I believe that the cover does increase the understanding of the topic by showing a recent image of Wearstler, showing her interior design work and shows that she was on the cover of Domino in 2008 as per the article states. On an aesthetic note - I think it's nice, and important, to have a depiction of either Wearstler and/or her design - as a designer, it's about the visual effect - and I figure it's better to have a now defunct magazine than another image to represent fair use in the article. I actually wrote her design firm requesting an image to no avail (as discussed in the DYK nomination). If people really do oppose the use of this image, perhaps we can find a different contemporary image of Wearstler or her work that we can decide on. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, but that just doesn't rise to the level of fair use, which is a pretty stringent standard. The magazine may be defunct, but somebody bought their intellectual property, and we can't violate their copyright just because we think the image is decorative. --165.189.32.4 (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I've been misunderstanding fair use and magazine covers then...I do use fair use in other articles dealing with art, including magazine covers, and I've yet to run into a problem. Thanks for your thoughts! SarahStierch (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose I am also confused by the large amount of magazines (including contemporary magazines from the past 15 years) that are here: . There is this though in the policy: "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. Similarly, a photo of a copyrighted statue (assuming there is no freedom of panorama in the country where the statue is) can only be used to discuss the statue itself, not the subject of it." Bold added by me. Hmm. Oh Wikipedia policy... Hmm! SarahStierch (talk)

It's really pretty straightforward: WP:NFCC#8 demands that the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and there's nothing about Kelly Wearstler that I didn't understand without seeing the picture that I did afterwards.—Kww(talk) 14:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

i understand what she looks like, and merits a conde nast cover. 98.163.75.189 (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I tend to agree with KWW's concern over fair use but not that the image fails to meet WP:NFCC#8, as I think it does add to our understanding by showing us what Wearstler looks like. I see the problem as more to do with WP:NFCC#1, insofar as it would be very easy in principle to obtain a non-copyrighted picture of Wearstler, perhaps even just by asking her for one. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I have to continue to disagree with you both, as 1) it illustrates the cover of Domino as mentioned in the article 2) It shows what she looks like 3) She is sitting in a room she did the interior design for. :) As somene involved in the fine art industry and writes mainly arts articles for Wikipedia, I tend to get feel that the visual addition strengthens the content. I suppose I'll have to lose this battle!

@George I actually contacted her interior design firm and they declined to supply a non-copyrighted picture. Thank you everyone for contributing to this conversation! SarahStierch (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I won't comment this in terms of the unfree images policies/guidelines, which I find ridiculously inconsistent. But in this case I think the presence of an unfree image may actually decrease the chance of eventually getting a free one, while the absence of any image may motivate someone to upload one. Let's wait and see. --Hegvald (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

interesting theory: let's make the wiki worse so that others will improve it. this image is not "decorative", rather it illustrates the critical commentary that she is a decorator. 98.163.75.189 (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you're being so negative about this! No reason to be! I stated above multiple times that it expresses who she is, the work she does and the magazine that is mentioned in the article. So no need for en-Wiki sarcasm :) If you feel that uncomfortable with the image on the article we can remove it, but, I'm happy to see it there! SarahStierch (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that was directed at Hegvald, not you, Sarah. Still, none of the reasons you have given overcome WP:NFCC#8.—Kww(talk) 21:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a judgment call in my view. Personally speaking, I found the image did significantly add to my understanding of who the BLP subject is (i.e. what she looks like, an indication of what her sense of style is, and what level of publicity she has had), so I am happy with NFCC8 at least. I've dropped User:Moonriddengirl, who's the most clueful copyright expert I know around here, a note about this so she can look at how well the NFCC are fulfilled overall. --JN466 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If the primary thing it explains to you is how Kelly Wearstler looks, that's a WP:NFCC#1 problem: copyrighted images to illustrate the appearance of a living person are never allowed, because they are inherently replaceable. Somebody, someday, may take a free picture of her. That no one has yet is irrelevant.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I was asked to weigh in here, but first I want to clarify that this issue is less to do with copyright and more to do with WP:NFC, which is the local exemption doctrine policy. It was deliberately constructed to be more strict than copyright law to ensure that our content remains as free as possible. I have some keen misgivings about this in terms of WP:NFC. I have seen magazine covers used in articles about living people, but these covers were themselves the subject of sourced commentary--for example, one that I saw was the first appearance of a black woman on the cover of that particular prominent magazine, and it was discussed as significant in other publications that were cited. I'm afraid that NFC was written pretty strictly. There's no doubt that it's nice to have a depiction of Wearstler or her work, but we can't always get that within policy. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed this talk page from the category of non free magazine covers, as it obviously is not such a thing. I agree with Moonr, the Domino cover could not be used here (looked it up on google of course), as the magazine was not about her, only 1 article, and this was not a particularly notable appearance, ie her appearance in the magazine (and on it) was not discussed in other forums. Oh and i just created an article for her book, and used the limited edition cover, which features HER. so now we have a fair use image of her, as her book is notably reviewed by NYT among others. I dont think we can also use that image here for her book.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)