Talk:Kim Kardashian

Delete this article

This individual is not noteworthy and has done nothing of any significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.19.197 (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion

Would be great if we could change Caitlyn Jenner's name in the Early life and Education section. 2001:569:FE32:300:19D8:33FA:215F:2B37 (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC

New Infobox image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

current image (left) and replacement proposal (right)

Should the picture in the infobox be changed?

• Support: The picture on the left, despite its high resolution, is 8 years old and no longer mirrors how the subject looks today. Plus, the lighting gives her a robotic vibe, which isn't really how she looks in person. On the right, the photo is also very high-quality and bright enough for readers to see her features clearly without veering into that cheap 80s model look. Seb.vv2221 (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: If we are arguing looks, I could argue just as well that her facelift and filtered skin on the right make her look uncanny, but I won't. The subject is perfectly recognizable in the older picture despite its age; the photo is well-centered, well-lit, and well-balanced; the background is neutral and high-contrast; her facial expression is natural and relaxed. In terms of quality, there's no comparison. The right picture isn't even a photograph, it's a visibly compressed and upscaled screengrab of an already compressed YouTube video. For all of these reasons, I'd argue that the left image is more so the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works when compared to the right one according to MOS:LEADIMAGE. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Give a choice between the two, I would go with the one posted here, hands down, for the reasons given by Throast. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to finding a better one than either of these two choices. Zaereth (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2024

She dated Micheal Cera but it was extremely private because of Kanye. Thanks. Stickbugsleg (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Car crash

Is her totaling her car as a teenager really notable? The sentence sticks out like a sore thumb Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Swift is not mentioned once??

There is absolutely no mention of the Swift-Kardashian-West feud back in 2016 at all. There should at least be something regarding it, as it captivated the three of them during that time. Not to mention the fact that an entire album came out of that. Jwilli39 (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

First I've heard of it, but then again I really don't follow either of them. The only reason this article is on my watchlist was from several requests at BLPN.

The thing is, we need to satisfy several criteria before it can be included. First, we need very reliable sources. Not tabloids and gossip columns but good sources. Then we need to weigh those against all the other sources about this subject to see just how much space it would deserve in this article. An entire section? A paragraph or two? A sentence or two? Or would even that be too much? An encyclopedia gives a brief summary of the subject, not in depth analyses, and summarizing by definition means cutting out unimportant details, and this is how we determine what is significant enough to include. If you want to do all that, you're most welcome to bring your sources here where it can be discussed. Zaereth (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The evidence of this can be seen in national news coverage, Taylor's documentary, in the Wikipedia article for Taylor, as well as in the article for Kanye's Song about Taylor.

I welcome someone else to write this section. Jwilli39 (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. See: WP:RS. What we need are books, magazines, news articles. Things like that. See: WP:Secondary sources.

Wikipedia's goal is to provide the sum of all knowledge, not all knowledge, so then the question remains of WP:NPOV, in specific WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. That's especially important for celebrities, because so much trivial stuff gets written about them that we need to separate the wheat from the chaff. With all the sources about this subject, somehow I doubt the info would require an entire section, or even a whole paragraph, but I may be wrong.

Here, I'll help. It's really a basic math problem in figuring out percentages. Imagine you have a scale, with every source that has ever been written about the subject (not just the ones in the article, but every source) on one side, and the sources containing this info on the other. With this subject, I'd imagine the first side would be stacked halfway to the moon, while the other side just a handful. Are there enough sources to make 1%? 2%? 5% and you may have a paragraph. 10% might be worth a section. But that needs to be figured out by people who have read and are familiar with all the sources, which is not me. But first you'd have to bring us some sources. It's like self-serve around here. Zaereth (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize that. You don't have to tell me. It's also an option to go to those articles and pull the sources from them. Jwilli39 (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Just trying to help. In my experience it's always an option but not a very effective strategy. We're all volunteers here, so the pay is lousy. Like me, most people are just too damn lazy to do all the legwork ourselves. The burden is generally on the person who wants the info included to source it and write it. Only then will there be anything to really discuss. Zaereth (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2024

Change "allowed" to "prompted" her to drop "West" as her last name. "Allowed" implies that there is some rule that a married woman must use her husband's last name and can only revert to her maiden name if divorced. Obviously, that is not true. A married woman can return to using her maiden name at any time, or can just not change it in the first place. Thank you. 69.131.153.214 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, a person can call themselves anything they like, but legally, you have to petition the court for a name change to be official. You have to do this when getting married, and when getting divorced, which is usually no problem because it's a normal part of the process. In other words, you can tell everybody to call you what you want, but what appears on your driver's license and social security card will only be your legal name. Now you can petition the court for a name change at any time, but outside of marriage and divorce it's a much more complicated process and there's always a risk you may be denied, so people getting divorced typically just wait and do it the easy way, but note that the sentence does refer to her legally changing her name.

Also, a woman is not required to revert back to her maiden name after a divorce. "Prompted" implies she was not planning a name change until the divorce had concluded, which would be a bit of mind reading on our parts, so I think "allowed" is better in this context. Zaereth (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

How about, She subsequently dropped "West" as her legal last name? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Throast's suggestion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2025

Tv credit CSI NY 2009 as Debbie Fallon

}} 2600:8805:1B0A:7E00:4546:D78E:5FA3:6CD1 (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: The credit is already included on the List of Kim Kardashian performances. Kim Kardashian#Filmography is a list of select works. Is there a reason why that credit in particular should be included? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

infobox Image

The correct one is old like so old, and it does not represent her correct face and honesty It looks weird compared to this file:President Trump Meets with Sentencing Commutation Recipients (49624188912) (cropped).jpg, which is from the White House and looks more professional. Besides being old, the correct one looks like an ID image. Lililolol (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Recency is not a concern when it comes to infobox images as long as the subject is recognizable to the average reader. I would argue that the current image is from a time when she was more ubiquitous and influential than she is now, thus making it a better fit for the average reader. All of your other concerns have been addressed in previous discussions. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

e

Partners

If Ray J is included I think it’s fair to add pete davidson, reggie bush, etc. Jxndrew (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Lead

The lead’s chronological structure leads to things like her sex tape and defunct store Dash appearing with much greater prominence than is really merited. I understand the sex tape thing is notable, but it’s not that essential to her that it must be how she’s introduced. Has this been discussed before? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

According to Google trends [1] the query "Kim Kardashian" was not searched until the year 2007 which happens to be the year her sex tape was released. This notwithstanding, Encyclopedia Britannica has an explanation for why Kim Kardashian is famous or WP:notable.[2]. Accordingly, its inclusion in the lead is essential to her because otherwise she would not have a wikipedia page. ReidLark1n 20:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Sknn

This article says that she founded Sknn, but she actually founded SKKN. Can someone please fix this? 2607:FEA8:FEC0:9CC1:8F5C:D0A4:CCBF:6D4E (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

A Sex Tape

Hi, it’s 2026 can we respect people and each other by changing her claim to fame from a sex tape to debuting on Keeping up with the Kardashians. So it’s kids friendly as so many kids know her and search this page up and give the women some respect. Who can be a solider of an editor and do some good today? ~2026-34164-95 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:not censored, so the article content cannot be removed for mention of a sex tape, if it has encyclopedic value. Pyrrhic victor (what did I do) In Solidarity 17:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Infobox image..?

I know the question of changing the infobox image has been brought up many times already, but I have to agree with previous commenters mentioning how off the image looks. What do you guys think of either of these cropped photos instead?

EnglishCSMajor (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the current image looks off, but I think the picture on the left is also suitable. I prefer it over the one on the right because the lighting is softer and her facial expression looks more relaxed. That being said, I don't think the current infobox image needs to be replaced. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. If I go ahead and replaced the current image with the left, would that be okay? EnglishCSMajor (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you raise any objective, policy-based argument other than that the current image "looks off" (which is very subjective, and I don't share this opinion). Changing images purely out of personal preference is generally not good practice. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, there's nothing actually wrong about the current image. The subject's face is clearly visible, and it is more recent than the proposed image. ~2026-36472-56 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)