Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Darkspots (talk | contribs)
6,346 edits
Does somebody have a bucket handy?
Line 170: Line 170:
* '''Delete''' Not notable enough for wikipedia [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 12:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' Not notable enough for wikipedia [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 12:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' because the article subject meets the notability requirements. One of the many things that Wikipedia does well is to make internet phenomena understandable to the general reader. Will people remember her in a century? No, but who's heard of 60% of the people in the latest public-domain [[Encyclopedia Britannica]]? The people who [[User:Rebecca|Rebecca]] call "masturbating neanderthal bloggers" have given this woman a [[Washington Post]] article and made her intensely, if (probably) fleetingly, notable. She's an adult, she's given interviews on the subject of her internet-meme notability--she meets the libel standard of a public figure, not a private one. [[User:Darkspots|Darkspots]] 13:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' because the article subject meets the notability requirements. One of the many things that Wikipedia does well is to make internet phenomena understandable to the general reader. Will people remember her in a century? No, but who's heard of 60% of the people in the latest public-domain [[Encyclopedia Britannica]]? The people who [[User:Rebecca|Rebecca]] call "masturbating neanderthal bloggers" have given this woman a [[Washington Post]] article and made her intensely, if (probably) fleetingly, notable. She's an adult, she's given interviews on the subject of her internet-meme notability--she meets the libel standard of a public figure, not a private one. [[User:Darkspots|Darkspots]] 13:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*: Does somebody have a bucket handy? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:55, 5 June 2007

Allison Stokke

AfDs for this article:
Allison Stokke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This young lady is a successful high-school athlete at the state-level. There other reasons she might have a WP article, but none are fully-compliant with BLP. Still, her athletic career on its own escapes a A7 speedy. The issue here is the notability of high-school record-holders. Weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. If I'd come across this and not known the histoy, I'd speedy delete it, no questions asked. If she's still a remarkably skilled athlete once she's an adult, I expect we may be seeing her again, but until then, there's nothing to talk about. Friday (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Friday.--Docg 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Holding a national (not state-level) record for a specified age group IMO is enough to constitute celar notability, regardless of any other source of notability. DES (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked before how many people are likely to "qualify" under this criterion? How many people compete to this level? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 20:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • She could probably legitimately account for a sentence in some relevant article, if such existed. But a biographical article? Friday (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've pointed to it several times, now. It's United States records in track and field. Uncle G 22:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It looks like those are plain-old-records, not specifically for kids. Her records are all of the "best among people in this grade" type, aren't they? Friday (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bear in mind that it's a vastly incomplete article (see the edit summaries). There's no reason that it could not be expanded with the relevant classes. The important question is what that class actually is, and whether it indeed is a formal category of records at all. The only sources that I can find describe it as a "freshman record" (Eugene W. Fields (2004-06-06). "Newport Harbor's Stokke wins pole vault". The Orange County Register. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) or the "Orange County record" (Steve Fryer (2005-03-11). "Stokke sets sights on unprecedented heights". The Orange County Register. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)). Uncle G 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DES: what record does she hold? She has a "2nd best" according to the source that's there, but it's not clear that's a 2nd best of all time or just 2nd best this year. Can you clarify, with a source? Mangojuicetalk 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or really weak merge per BIO and my previous statements on the DRV. Weak merge would be to something like a List of record holding... somethings... Doesn't seem to be enough for a full article, if the record stuff is notable. The meme stuff, without question, is nothing more than a passing fad and should not be included in any reference to her if something about her is still included. -- Ned Scott 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her notability doesn't come from her track records; it comes from her status as an internet sensation, covered by no less than the Washington Post and New York Times. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801370.html?hpid=topnews and http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/who-gets-a-wikipedia-entry/).--Plainsong 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All of these three are notable without the meme. She deserves an article for her track merits. This satisfies WP:BLP, and WP:BIO. I don't see what the fuss is all about. Oh, and this took me like 2 minutes. AGF people.
  • so, there's at least three that make her notable without the meme. Any questions? McKay 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Everyone else in Category:Pole vaulters seems to have cleared 4.4 meters. See e.g. Tanya Stefanova, Janine Whitlock or Christine Adams (athlete). Haukur 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the owner of the national 100m record for under 10s is notable? It's not our business to document this ridiculous meme stuff that'll be forgotten about in two weeks. We are supposed to be responsible, especially in sensitive cases like this. Does she really pass WP:N as a vaulter? Delete. Moreschi Talk 20:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Meets WP:BIO due to both her achievements (5 California state records) and her unfortunate recent internet fame. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide sources noting her fame, before and outside of the context of the meme? If you can that would be helpful.--Docg 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dunno, are you gonna threaten to block me if I do? Regardless, check Google news, there are plenty before the picture flap, and the picture flap is entirely worthy of inclusion per WP:BLP. So that's all you need to concern yourself with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Friday and WP:BIO. Sean William @ 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jeff, and pxpls. —M (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I was trying to think of past precedents, I remembered our articles on youth bowlers such as Chaz Dennis, Michael Tang, and Elliot John Crosby, who are (or were) the youngest to bowl a 300 game. The Tang article survived an AFD in April of 2006. Maybe that helps, I don't know. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There was no clear consensus in the DRV and the Washington Post and the New York Times are about as reliable as sources can possibly get, so there isn't any real BLP issue here. Breaking multiple pole vaulting records in a large state like California by itself would be a claim of notability by any intuitive defintion of notability and we have enough sources to satisfy WP:BIO even before any of the recent internet coverage comes into play. The internet coverage is simply the final straw. And again, no one has pointed to anything resembling an actual BLP issue with this article. JoshuaZ 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are not re-running the DRV here. That there were BLP issues for excluding that material was endorsed. --Docg 21:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only thing that was fully endorsed as far as I can tell was that without sourcing there was a BLP issue. The presence of multiple sources such as the Washington Post makes there be no BLP issue by any reasonable defintion. Let's not pretend we had some sort of magical consensus to change wha constitutes a reliable source. The NYT and WP are both reliable sources. Period. JoshuaZ 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've re-read the closure - it said nothing of the sort. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some recent competition data here: [4] Tori Anthony doing quite well. Haukur 21:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP issues raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke as well as on the recent deletion review. I've never been so ashamed to have both an X and Y chromosome. Burntsauce 21:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again ignoring that she meets WP:BIO even without the recent internet activity and that there is no BLP issue when we have good sourcing, which we have. In any event, your own shame with the behavior of heterosexual members of your gender is not a reason to delete a well-sourced article about a notable individual. JoshuaZ 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability can be debated, but I’d prefer we err on the side of human decency. Lampman 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Do you think we should delete Daniel Brandt also? If not, what is the difference? Furthermore, how is our noting that others have commented about her and that those comments recieved so much attention as to be noted in major newspapers at all a failing of human decency? JoshuaZ 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference is that Daniel Brandt has sought publicity. As for the one million Google sites, most of those will go away, while Wikipedia (at the risk of hubris) is forever. Lampman 21:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How odd, this person has engaged in a highly public national competition. And no the Washington Post and the New York Times don't magically go away (and dare I say it, I'd be almost willing to bet that both of those will outlast Wikipedia). And she has given an interview with the Washington Post about the very topic in controversy. Once someone gives an interveiw, it is very hard to argue that the person has no willingness to be a public figure. The biggest difference that I can see between Brandt and Ms. Stokke is that Brandt is a jerk and so we have less sympathy than he does whereas the story of a girl who is good-looking and getting flack for that is a real tear-jerker. JoshuaZ 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We probably need a Godwin's Law analogue for when Argumentum Ab Brandt is invoked in a deletion discussion. Entering an athletics competition is not the same as seeking publicity. Uncle G 23:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to some "list of national record-holders" somewhere. Not particularly notable. --Carnildo 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I said on the DRV... "this subject is notable per her records, All americans are clearly determined notable by consensus as we have over a hundred in Category:McDonald's High School All-Americans" yes McD's all americans are basketball not pole vaulting... but to allow a category for one sport and not another is a clear bias.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. News coverage has been based primarily on sensationalist, tabloid-style articles. Leaving that coverage aside, her sports achievements do not in themselves merit an article. How many other people have high school-level sports records and would never be considered for an article here? Croctotheface 21:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Just because we haven't gotten around to writing those articles doesn't mean we shouldn't have articles. There is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and there is a similar fallacy in asserting that because an article is the only one of its category yet written therefore we should delete it. JoshuaZ 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability established by front-page article of Washington Post ([5] and [6]), along with separate articles in the LA Times [7] and others. Neier 21:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we have invented a set of "standards" to describe "notability" and if we pull and push and prod and poke we can make this case fit them. But, for gods sake, these are standards we made up ourselves, not some form of "To Be An Encyclopedia Thou Shalt..." instructions handed down on tablets of stone. If we change them, we don't magically have to vanish in a puff of smoke or excoriate ourselves for failure - we just have to say, hey, guidelines are wrong sometimes.
    • We are sitting here fetishising arbitrary rules, which have no meaning or significance or importance to our mission, over the ability to exercise editorial judgement. It's depressing. No matter how many arbitrary guidelines we muddle together, it doesn't change the fact that we are writing an encyclopedia; the fact that this is a private individual; the fact that her fame is transient and tawdry and unwanted.I have never been more ashamed of the project than I am just now. For god's sake, I wish people could show some perspective, show some common sense, show some backbone and, above all, show some willingness to think about what is the right thing to do. Shimgray | talk | 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everyone is trying to do the right thing and everyone is aware that what we do may impact a real person. If we have an article it may get the top Google slot. That's quite a lot of power we're entrusted with - do we refrain from using it or do we try to use it for good in some way? Reasonable people can come up with different answers to that. Haukur 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't object a well-reasoned argument saying "I don't like having an article on this person, but I feel it's necessary" (though I feel it's misguided)... but I don't see it having been raised in this discussion yet. "Notability asserted by foo and bar" is not one of those arguments, it's a mindless fetishistic incantation of "it fulfils this criteria therefore we should have an article". These "discussions" rapidly degenerate into mindless repetition of arbitrary standards we made up; whatever happened to people actually trying to exercise editorial judgement? Shimgray | talk | 21:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We learned better. We learned, from a lot of experience, that basing our decisions upon subjective judgements on the parts of individual editors, exactly the thing that you are talking about, led to chaos. Uncle G 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not asking for immediate decisions by single users; what I want is to see the community actually making a serious attempt to discuss a serious issue, not glibly quoting abitrary thresholds at each other. We are on, what, the third or fourth discussion over this article, and we're still getting the same "does/does not fulfil Criteria A, B, C and D" parroted recurringly by most participants in what ought to be a sensible editorial debate! Shimgray | talk | 22:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Saying that a subject does or does not fulfil a set of criteria, and specifying the reasons why or why not, is a perfectly sensible editorial debate. The only reason for this second debate is the early closure of the first one. It is nothing to do with editors using criteria to judge an article and citing sources in support of their arguments. Uncle G 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-public person that does not want media attention. Her short fame comes from unwanted harassing attention not her high school athletic achievements. This does not support an article per notability issues. FloNight 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment for the record, a 5 minute search turned up many additional articles about her pole vaulting by itself. For example, we have this one and this this one (registration required) and many more. JoshuaZ 21:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (and I am tempted to just do it, though I will resist) on the ground that having gotten rid of the problematic material at DRV, the present debate whether to have a borderline-notable-at-best article on the harmless material is nothing but a drama-magnet. Newyorkbrad 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just do it--Docg 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, please, no. That's all we need. If this gets a "fair shake" at AFD perhaps we can all get on with our lives? Friday (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Friday, that's what I thought. But this is absurd. All we are doing in re-running the DRV.--Docg 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is a bit absurd, yes. But can we please please please only have this one last absurd thing? If it gets speedied this time, then we'll really be running a deletion review. And that would be even more absurd. Perhaps we should just turn off the wiki and pretend this never existed. Friday (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It shouldn't be speedied. It claims significance, that's all it has to do to pass A7. And the idea of speedy deleting as a "drama magnet" is, I'm sure, a black joke - surely we know by now that doing so would cause more drama, not less. Not to mention Xoloz's closure deserves more respect than that. Mangojuicetalk 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DRV did not give any sort of authority to remove any material, as no material that is sourced is problematic. Thank you for resisting your temptations, but your point of view isn't consistent with policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A notable athlete (per WP:BIO) who has become even more notable due to recent non-trivial coverage in some of the most notable sources available (LA Times, NY Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Washington Post front page). No BLP issues and Wikipedia contains content you might find objectionable. Prolog 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've already endorsed the BLP removals. This is a different debate on whether the athletics are notable. Youre!vote is irrelevant tot he issue at hand.--Docg 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should keep it because "Wikipedia contains content you might find objectionable"? That is the most insulting, arrogant, glib, meaningless piece of posturing I have seen here in thirty months. Shimgray | talk | 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, we should keep this per WP:BIO and WP:V. Prolog 22:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ethical points of view are irrelevant? That certainly qualifies as the most despicable statement I've seen in a very long while. ➥the Epopt 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • An encyclopedia with millions of users and millions of ethical points of view is no place to promote personal ethics. Prolog 23:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is, however, the correct place to promote an ethical code which says - we have the opportunity to make an encyclopedia, thus we have the duty to make it good. Glibly pretending we have no responsibility for the effects and implications of the material we decide to include is intellectually dishonest and ethically bankrupt. Has the project really sunk this low? Shimgray | talk | 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are erroneously conflating "the project" with the opinion of a single editor. Please refrain from such generalizations, especially given that it is patently obvious that there are other editors with markedly different opinions. Hyperbole is not going to aid this discussion. Uncle G 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I looked into it, and Stokke's "2nd best" pole vault was 4.14m, which is way off the US women's record which stands at at least 4.84m. And I'm not even sure what "2nd best" in the source refers to: 2nd best nationally this year? Among high school students only? Among high school students this year only? No, I don't think she cuts it as an athlete just yet. Mangojuicetalk 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's clear that her athletic accomplishments don't yet meet our standards for inclusion, although she may well go on to do so. Would those who wish to document the other publicity she's received find adding her situation as a case study in Internet privacy or some other similar article to be an appropriate solution? That seems to be the context in which this issue has been covered in the major news media. (That question also applies to those who feel that coverage of the incident for which she's received press mention recently violates WP:BLP - would covering it in the context of general internet privacy concerns make sense?) JavaTenor 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, why is well-sourced positive content being removed from the article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per multiplicity of sources and undeniable fame. The Washington Post coverage will be forever, so saying that a Wikipedia article is forever as a reason to invoke WP:BLP is disingenious. -N 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete — her athletic achievements do not rise to the level of notability, and her role as inspiration for a passing fad is dramatically out-weighed by her right to privacy ➥the Epopt 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Spot87 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, once you get past the lurid and sensationalist material which was rightly deleted, there is simply not much there. We generally don't, and shouldn't, provide biographies of high school athletes; consider also the primary inclusion policy, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Christopher Parham (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable as a high-school athlete (there are far too many high school record holders for that to be a means of establishing notability). The Internet meme is a current event, not an encyclopedic topic. Bottom line: we have a better product without including a dubious article like this. If she later clears the notability hurdle (no pun), the article can be created then. --Ssbohio 23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Notability for both athletic achievements and for the net meme affair, per the numerous sources given above. Both issuies should be fairly accounted for in the article. Tarc 23:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to List of track and field recordholders Delete - Sources available suggest she holds no national records. FCYTravis 01:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She seems, per the numerous newspaper articles cited, to have substantial coverage of her athletic achievements in multiple independent and reliable sources, satisfying WP:N. I do not see a standard as some have proposed for how many meters of height she must clear to have an article. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and I have not heard that we are about to run out of server space and must limit article to those athletes achieving some stated objective measure of prowess. She gets 1,170,000 Google hits. A Wikipedia article about her athleticism will surely help to maintain NPOV balance with any other fame for those doing Google searches. Her interview published on the front page of the Washington Post indocates she is not utterly opposed to any mention of her name, and its inclusion as a reference would be appropriate, especially since it provides an overview of her sports achievements. Edison 23:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. High school achievements are not sufficient for notability under WP:BIO. This article wouldn't even have been created if not for all this silliness about her pictures being posted on the Internet, and that's just not an encyclopedic subject. WarpstarRider 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — The subject is known outside high school track and field exclusively due to a flash-in-the-pan round of Internet postings that never could have occurred without violations of a track newspaper's copyright and the subject's own right to privacy, and which her attorney father has quickly been clamping down. There's a significant question whether a Wikipedia article would violate her right to privacy, given that she has never sought any public attention beyond by competing in high school sports and doing well at it, and had no reasonable expectation of public attention beyond, at most, the kind of reasonably low-profile and very temporary coverage typical for high school sports. The comments by David.Monniaux on WP:BLP in the previous nomination, to the effect that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry...." etc., should have been the last word on the matter. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [disclaimer: this note is intended only as general commentary, not as legal advice.][reply]
  • Strong Delete - the Washington Post article actually proves she's not notable, not that she is notable. Nick 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She is notable by achieving the second-best pole vault record in the nation Bleh999 00:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read your sources carefully: she has achieved the second-best pole vault result for a female high-school senior in the US this far in 2007, not the second-best US result of all time. --bainer (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • that does not make her any less notable in current events, we have a lot more useless and non notable individuals on wikipedia, don't discount her you have never heard of her, she has been widely reported in the media and makes her notable enough for inclusion, remember wikipedia is not a democracyWP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, hence this vote should be about keeping to the standard of what is currently allowed on wikipedia not just because she is unknown to some people (because of their geographical location) Bleh999 03:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who said anything about having heard of her or not? I was simply pointing out that your statement was incorrect, or at least missing several important qualifiers. --bainer (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • many of those voting to delete are outside the US hence their claim of her being non notable maybe just because of where they live, hence not really a valid reason for deletion Bleh999 05:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Reaverdrop, who's put the arguments far more clearly than I can. National age-group records? Not notable. Per WP:BIO, athletes are generally notable if they are "competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis" or they are "competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." High school track and field assuredly does not qualify. Js farrar 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. FNMF 00:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This athlete wouldn't want to be kept here by strength of male hormones (and yes, it does matter in marginal cases if the subject of an article doesn't want to be covered). Let's delete the article, but that isn't to say that her athletic feats must not be mentioned, in context and given due weight, in an article about American high school athletics, if we have any such articles. --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the aforementioned arguments for having a biographical article on this person are based upon statements that this person holds "national records". They appear, however, to be repetitions of received knowledge that lacks specifics. Friday, Mangojuice, and (even, albeit not explicitly) Doc glasgow have all asked the same question: What records are these? Specifics of what the records in fact are, when they were set, and what age category and level of competition they were set for, are lacking at the moment. The article in the Washington Post doesn't say. I've looked for sources, and what I have turned up so far (cited above) only specifies "freshman record" and "Orange County record". Without citations of sources giving specifics, the arguments put forward above have a verifiability problem. Uncle G 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly seems to hold WP's interest. Eventually might be merged into separate articles on track records and internet phenomena but I've heard reasonable arguments that suggest (for now) to keep. Jussen 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. She is a high school record holder. There are no other articles on Wikipedia about people solely notable for this. If it wasn't for the masturbating neanderthal bloggers, we wouldn't be here at all, and as it has (thank god) apparently been agreed that having that in the article would be the mother of all BLP violations, keeping an article on her in any form makes absolutely no sense. Rebecca 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable in my opinion. Got 1,120,000 searches on Google and seems relevant to her. -ScotchMB 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This person is a fairly successful high school athlete, which is nice, but not sufficient to warrant retaining this article, which - let's be honest - for all the posturing is really only being defended in order to propagate the meme. There has been much said about sources, but for that, please see my comments here. "Google tests" are largely useless - it is necessary to look at the nature and quality of the sources. Stokke gets mentioned a few times in the sports sections of local newspapers, and has answered one or two questions for reporters from those papers. The majority of the coverage is like this, lists of competition results, or this, a passing mention in a discussion of other athletes. The coverage is absolutely borderline, and does not mandate having an article. The whole issue of the meme is just an extra reason to delete. There really is no cause to have a biographical article now. --bainer (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We needn't be bound by our own guidelines, which we created, after all; least of all, notability policy when it says keep against common sense. "Ignore All Rules" really is policy for a reason. The critical question, it seems to me, is whether having a Wikipedia article lessens or increases the harm to Stokke. My feeling is that, like the Washington Post article (which seems to have spurred the shutdown of http://www.allisonstokke.com/ ), a Wikipedia article neutrally discussing the meme and Stokke and her family's reaction to it (as described in the WaPo article) will on the whole be beneficial. The only people to find the article will be those who already know of Stokke, so if they are not going to a Wikipedia article, they will inevitably be going somewhere worse (from Stokke's perspective), where they may only get the drooling internet fan side of things. If the choice is between an article that only discusses Stokke as a high school athlete and no article at all, the obvious choice is to delete. If the choice is between an article that includes the meme story and no article, I would tend toward "keep, semi-protect, and monitor very carefully."--ragesoss 01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Really, that is a very tenuous claim to notability in the current version of the article, and we would not have had this article at all if it were not for that horrible episode of drooling madness. -- Donald Albury 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone that follow high school sports closely knows that high school records are almost meaningless because unlike colleges and universities, there is not uniform participation and accurate recording for high school athletic events. The reporting of records is mostly voluntary by interested coaches or officials. Because of this, I'm reluctant to put much weight into the notability of high school record holders. FloNight 01:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't mean to diminish her achievements, since anyone involved with college-level vaulting has known about her and a few other high school stars for at least a couple years. (What she vaulted as a high school sophomore would have won most college meets, and place even in many U.S. division Ia conference championships.) However, she does not hold a general national high school record. She held the very age-specific first-year and second-year national records. Would the person holding the age 70-79 U.S. national record automatically deserve an article? I don't think so. The subject here has, of course, received more press than the typical age 16 or age 70-79 record holders, and it's unfortunate that the subject became first known outside vaulting for something other than vaulting. Gimmetrow 01:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was about to add an opinion a few minutes ago, but now I think I'll Take a Step Back for a bit. I'd heartily recommend the practice to everyone else at this point, as I don't see how so many edits so fast is leading towards anything approaching Consensus. If there was ever a moment to just chill before hitting 'Save Page', this one is probably it, people. LaughingVulcan 01:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Her record as an athlete does not make her notable as such at this stage. While her photographs have gotten some media attention, her notability at this stage does not overcome BLP concerns. Indeed, the article as it is could be speedy deleted as not asserting notability. If her athletic career progresses, we should have an article on her then.Capitalistroadster 02:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Her status as an apparently quite successful high school pole vaulter does not, in itself, present notability. All that's left is her internet status, which I think is sufficiently weighed by the BLP issues. Ral315 » 02:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment what BLP concern? Everything is well sourced. JoshuaZ 02:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's no longer a sufficient argument. FCYTravis 02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • His argument is fine; yours is not. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the fact that some blogs and such made a stir about her attractiveness, as reported by reliable sources such as the Washington Post. Once can report on salacious events in a non-salacious manner, and a mention of the events is not a BLP violation. Also, it might help keep the discussion out of the gutter if people like you [19] and Rebecca [20] stop posting these rather offensive and disgusting allegations. Calm down and take a breather. Tarc 05:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no reason not to have articles on the best HS athletes if we have good sources for them. If there were 70-79 year olds who could vault to the level of major conference eligibility, I'd think they would indeed be notable--but of course they would have been notable for their undoubtedly higher earlier records. This isn't a matter of privacy or BLP--if the public notice had been for unfortunate things she would be later ashamed of I would say very differently. It will look a little silly adding her next year when she's at college and seeing all this. This discussion is already an excellent opportunity for Wikjipedia Review to make fun of us. DGG 02:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BLP prohibits as it always did the addition of unsourced controversial material. Her athletic accomplishment are , however, both well sourced and non controversial. The meme is perhaps controversial, but well sourced, and I do not see how that has become irrelevant. DGG 02:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments indicate that you've never actually bothered to read Wikipedia Review. WR forum users are generally in favor of us strengthening our biographical requirements - as we're doing here. This is part of the evolution of Wikipedia - less tabloid, more encyclopedia. FCYTravis 03:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is very peculiar in that we have both sides claiming WP:BIO is on their side and the other side is an extremist view point. Ignoring that both sides both think one policy with an opposite meaning is on both sides the arguments apart from that made me lean towards keep. A lot of the delete comments, most being ill-informed calls for speedy deletion, seem to be arguments that are thinly veiled positions on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and arguing from a moral standpoint. The keep side has been arguing that her pole vaulting career is the driving force behind their keep but I don't believe that either, although in my opinion the fact this was found would make her at least notable in sportbios. I am however of the opinion the internet meme, that is the real drvging force behind both this articles inclusion and deletion, should not be as contentious as people consider. There are many precendents for articles in this situation including The Bus Uncle (featured article), Star Wars kid and The Saugeen Stripper. The recent rush for deletion of articles on this type seems to be that people have taken WP:BLP to be the be all and end all of all articles and the fact is a lot of these arguments simply don't follow BLP and scream BLP as a deletion reason rather than its actual reason for existing, to maintain biographical articles neutrally and sourced. –– Lid(Talk) 03:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of whether this article is kept or not, it will not mention the so-called Internet meme. That has already been determined. The only thing this AfD is considering is whether or not Ms. Stokke's athletic accomplishments are suitable for encyclopedic coverage or not. FCYTravis 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that from the DRV closing but I still perceive it as a double standard. The delete proponents argue under WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY (essay), WP:IDONTLIKEIT (essay) and WP:RPA (essay) while the keep argue from WP:V (policy), WP:NPOV (policy) and WP:NOT censored (policy). With the precents it just seems that wikipedia has gone from the free encyclopedia with a basis in policy to trying to find the moral high ground in regards to articles. –– Lid(Talk) 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bollocks. The delete argument is from Biographies of living persons, which is one of the strongest policies we've got. Moreover Verifiability and Neutral point of view (ever met someone who converses in English, by the way?) can never be an argument to keep an otherwise problematic article, and "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn't mean that we let any old crap into Wikipedia. Your deployment of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it and Remove personal attacks is masterly, but only if viewed as black propaganda, and hardly illuminating. --Tony Sidaway
          • The delete argument is from Biographies of living persons, which is one of the strongest policies we've got. I know you pride yourself in spelling things out rather than using abbreviations but could you quote the part of that policy which you think most clearly applies here and determines the course of action we should take? Haukur 10:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I specifically left out BLP because both sides are claiming BLP supports their side and that the other side is wrongfully interpretting BLP. As both sides have a valid claim I focussed on the other arguments in the debate as giving BLP to either side in my eyes would've been a biased position. Your random attacks and uncivil additions for seemingly no reason than to bite at me don't exactly give me great faith in your position either (ever met someone who converses in English, by the way?). –– Lid(Talk) 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepWhy would her evaluation be single dimensional? There are numerous other factors to consider, including her appearance in various newspapers, etc.
  • Delete. A high school athlete in a minor sport is not something we have to cover. An unfortunate fit of internet ogling is something we ought not cover. So what else is there to talk about? Chick Bowen 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Many published works on the topic. WP:IDONTLIKEIT notwithstanding, "the world" decides if something is notable, not Wikipedia editors. --Oakshade 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She won a state championship and broke several records, seems like straightforward notability to me. The internet phenomenon hardly need enter into it. Bryan Derksen 05:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable individual, meets WP:BIO and no BLP violations. 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete, nothing here to write a biography. Not really notable as an athlete yet (still too young), and the internet phenomenon thing just gives us a one-line story that isn't about her. Kusma (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violates core official policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because Wikipedia is not a blog, a soapbox, a publisher of original research, or an indiscriminate collection of random information! Also, I will note for the record that a significant number of editors voting for "Keep" appear to be immature juveniles with a weak understanding of proper English spelling and grammar (starting with the rule that the word "Internet" is traditionally capitalized). I sincerely wonder about their ability to understand Wikipedia core policies and principles which have been reaffirmed hundreds of times by ArbCom, the Foundation, Jimbo Wales, and the majority of Wikipedia admins. --Coolcaesar 06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alison is a beautiful girl, and she should be flattered about that; unfortunately, that does not an article make, and the depravity of a few does not cut it either. I wish her the best of luck in her career, but there's no need to have an article on her. Delete, without prejudice to recreation if/when her athletic career has a longer list of accomplishments. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Athletes are notable if they are in a professional league, won an "open" (which means not age-restricted) nationwide championship or something similar. Being a high school athlete, even an excellent high school athlete, does not make the mark. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since we would not even have an article in the first place if it were not for the drooling idiots who obsess over her picture. And Xoloz, this was a stupid idea - the DRV showed a clear weight of arguments balance to keep deleted. We can afford to wait until she has acieved actual notability outside of Teh Internets, and meantime we can maybe discuss the Washington Post article a little at an article on internet privacy. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have to disagree with you there, Guy. DRV showed that the community felt that the speedy deletion was inappropriate, hence the correct thing to do was restore and relist on AFD. Js farrar 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:N based on multiple reliable sources covering her in nontrivial fashion. From a practical standpoint, she's probably better known at this point than 95% of our bio articles. I'm not saying OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I'm saying she clearly meets our criteria. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until she establishes her reputation as an athlete beyond all doubt, and until those who wish to decorate her article with the banner headline "Teen Tests Internet's Lewd Track Record" (yes, that is the headline on the story we are being told "establishes her notibility") start typing with both hands and smell the coffee. —Phil | Talk 08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The brouhaha establishing her notability is distasteful, but it exists, is verifiable, and can be sourced. She also participated in an interview about the issue, which kind of invalidates the points of people saying she isn't looking for notability on the subject. She is very clearly notable, and thus deserves an article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is still not policy. --Ashenai 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is established by multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, so meets WP:BIO. The article is sourced, neutral and verifiable, so not in violation of WP:BLP. Waltonalternate account 09:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since when did WP:BLP apply to sourced statements? Jon513 11:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough for wikipedia Avi 12:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the article subject meets the notability requirements. One of the many things that Wikipedia does well is to make internet phenomena understandable to the general reader. Will people remember her in a century? No, but who's heard of 60% of the people in the latest public-domain Encyclopedia Britannica? The people who Rebecca call "masturbating neanderthal bloggers" have given this woman a Washington Post article and made her intensely, if (probably) fleetingly, notable. She's an adult, she's given interviews on the subject of her internet-meme notability--she meets the libel standard of a public figure, not a private one. Darkspots 13:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does somebody have a bucket handy? --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allison_Stokke_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=136055941"