Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:27, 20 October 2021

Kelli Stavast

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable motorsports pit reporter. No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable/independent sources. There has been some RECENTISM in the press, but even that has consisted of trivial mentions of her doing her job, which one is not notable simply for doing. Fails NBASIC GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete as per nominator. Non-notable. It takes more than just being a reporter to warrant having a Wikipedia article. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a "Let's Go Brandon" article Non-notable. It takes more than just being a reporter to warrant having a Wikipedia article. Although she is non-notable, the "Let's Go Brandon" thing has become a meme and is notable as per the most recent sourcing. I support covering "Let's Go Brandon" the way we do other memes such as Pepe the Frog or Distracted boyfriend... we recognize that simply being responsible for a meme does not warrant an article for the creator. Rather, we refer to the person responsible for the meme in the meme's article. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as her interview with Brandon, and the popularity she gained as a result, should receive some coverage on Wikipedia. The "Let's Go Brandon" catch phrase continues to be popular, with media outlets covering this week and in the past 24 hours. Stub articles are allowed on Wikipedia. She also has a career of almost 20 years. Are any of her other interviews or news reports notable? If so, they should be listed on her Wikipedia article. --LABcrabs (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:10YT, and as I said in the nom, there has been no significant coverage about her at all, at least when doing my BEFORE checks. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Description of the "Let's Go Brandon" episode was in her article, but was removed for not having strong enough sourcing. Using that episode as justification for retaining her article, when it is not even strong enough to remain in her article, is illogical. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - SaltySaltyTears, Bad take because all we need are sources to exist, they don't necessarily need to be in the article to justify a WP:GNG pass. That said, just the one incident fails WP:BLP1E. Curbon7 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Several Wikipedia articles include sections on "Controversy". Keep as cross-reference on a controversy section to pedia's other articles (e.g. 2021_Sparks_300)

Comment: @RayUPRM1998: please read WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:BLP1E. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @RayUPRM1998: welcome to Wikipedia, and please sign your comments with "~~~~" SaltySaltyTears (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as "Let's go Brandon" information is allowed in the article. Her page has been up for over a year. The only reason it is nominated for deletion is because the leftist Wikipedia gatekeepers do not want articles unflattering to Joe Biden and other Democrats. It's the same old story, it's all over the place on Wikipedia, as pointed out by the inventor of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. Sourcing for anything unflattering to Democrats is never good enough. First of all, only left-wing sources are allowed. Then, if the left-wing sources do include something unflattering to Democrats, it is still not good enough for some other BS reasons. JimmyPiersall (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ASPERSIONS. Also see the fact that I also nominated three other pit reporters who had nothing to do with the political crap for the same rationale as this article. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Knock it off with the partisanship, please... you might consider actually practicing some of that "assume good faith" you claim you practice on your user page. I am a Trump voter, I think Biden is a disaster for the country, and I fully support the removal of this and other articles about non-notable people... it is not just a "leftist" thing. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The inclusion of the recently-popular meme in this BLP does not appear supported by policy, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and not a tabloid, particularly for a WP:MINORASPECT of a subject's career. Based on my research, there also appears to be insufficient sourcing available to support the WP:BASIC or WP:JOURNALIST notability criteria for a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are four RSes cited for the article topic here, so this passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG - multiple, independent sources with significant depth. Any reading otherwise strikes me as highly suspect. She isn't just mentioned in the articles, they all include her as a topic in the headline. This is basically just checking the sources and counting. Is it more than one? Yes, there's four. Are they reliable? Yes. So it passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. WP:JOURNALIST is additional criteria mentioned in the notability of people: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. The "Let's Go Brandon" discussion is a red herring. This is just verifying and counting sources, all of which existed prior to the meme. - Scarpy (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe Beccaynr's source assessment is fair and sans other RS appearing not related to the Brandon event, it should be deleted. - Scarpy (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[1] - This basically just explains that she's married. Where's the SIGCOV in that? [2] - This is a press release from her employer (not independent of the subject) briefly stating that she will be working NASCAR races. [3] - This is from her Alma Mater, also not independent. That leaves this [4] ; which, sure, you can use to pull information on jobs she's worked, but how does that make her notable? The article would end up looking like Marty Snider's; that is, a directory.

GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment - I developed a source assessment table for the sources in the article, with my interpretation of their support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
NASCAR Pit Reporter Kelli Stavast Shares Sunset Proposal Story, “Timeless” Ring Details (The Knot, 2016)	~ Based primarily on statements of the subject, WP:SECONDARY context introduces the subject and commentary is limited to anticipation of the wedding.	Terms of use includes "THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED FOR ENTERTAINMENT, EDUCATIONAL, AND PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES ONLY." This is not a journalistic or academic source.	~ Based primarily on statements of the subject, WP:SECONDARY context introduces the subject and commentary is limited to anticipation of the wedding.	✘ No
Marty Snider, Kelli Stavast added to NBC's NASCAR on-air team (NBCSports, 2014)	This is a press release from the employer of the subject		~ 2 sentences about her past career in addition to the announcement.	✘ No
The Life of a Racing Pit Reporter: Kelli Stavast (Frontstretch, 2019)	A mix of interview and WP:SECONDARY context	About Us section of the website indicates a news structure exists.	~ A mix of interview and WP:SECONDARY context, with commentary that appears related to pit reporting generally, not the subject.	~ Partial
Kelli Stavast ’02 Takes on Olympic Assignment for NBC (Chapman University, 2018)	Alumni magazine interview with alumni		~ Mostly based on quotes from the subject.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Beccaynr (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I mostly agree with Beccaynr here. - Scarpy (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One person posted here that a reason to delete it that supposedly the sources of the news stories are considered unreliable by Wikipedia. There’s enough evidence of the story to convince a jury that it happened if such could be necessary. And so I would suggest that if all the sources that are publishing this story and it’s increasing aftermath are considered unreliable, then we have a problem on Wikipedia. Perhaps instead of claiming that we should locate reliable sources? This incident is gaining Notoriety by the day. Perhaps at a minimum we should pause any decision on this and see what transpires over the next several months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagofscrews (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC) — Bagofscrews (talk • contribs) has made few (about 10 as of this date) or no other edits outside this topic, which could be simply due to this user being new. (bagofscrews); [reply]
My rationale for deletion has nothing to do with any recent incidents. Please see this this and this, all nominated by myself on the same day for the same rationale. Also, please do not add your own commentary to the templates that other editors are placing. All of us should be assuming good faith here; you do not need to explain yourself. Anyone is able to look at your edit history. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LABcrabs. That meme alone is her claim to fame, it's being widely reported about.

If it's newsworthy for the BBC, The Independent, Newsweek, The Spectator, and others, it's notable here.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58878473

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/maga-lets-go-brandon-meme-biden-b1938322.html

https://www.newsweek.com/lets-go-brandon-meme-explained-1637434

https://spectator.org/lets-go-brandon

https://www.businessinsider.com/lets-go-brandon-chant-origin-video-what-does-it-mean-2021-10

https://www.the-sun.com/news/3849893/what-does-lets-go-brandon-meme-mean

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article255093152.html

https://tennesseestar.com/2021/10/18/joke-anti-biden-song-lets-go-brandon-goes-viral-tops-itunes-hip-hop-chart

tickle me 07:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those address the subject of this article directly and in great detail (I refuse to give The Sun a click since it is a deprecated source.). They all cover a political meme, at least some of which do so with a great amount of bias, and some of which don't even include this subject's name. @Tickle me: try again, and next time don't use obviously biased sources like The American Spectator. Seriously, get that bullshit out of here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BIASED "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." From looking at the reliable sources noticeboard, it does not seem anyone has ever raised an objection to American Spectator. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources noted above may be relevant to a Deletion review of the Fuck Joe Biden AfD that closed as a snowball delete on September 27, 2021, but the sources that clear WP:RSP (or would need attribution due to apparent bias) also help demonstrate the risk of a WP:COATRACK here, and WP:BLP policy concerns. It looks a bit like WP:ATTACK to keep an otherwise unsupported BLP, based only on this incident, e.g. Why are MAGA supporters chanting ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ to mock Democrats? (The Independent, October 14, 2021, "the blip is being used as an example by Trump supporters of how certain outlets bend the truth. “The reporter just lies,” said one user under the viral video."), How 'Let's go Brandon' became an anti-Biden conservative heckle (BBC, October 12, 2021, "Some conservatives view Ms Stavast's attribution of the Biden chant as yet another example of the media covering up for and protecting Biden by downplaying what they view as the depth of the president's unpopularity."). I think a four-sentence article about "a hip-hop mash-up of the chanting crowd" (Tennessee Star, October 18, 2021) also helps show the WP:COATRACK, and the lyrics of the recent song appear to support the concern noted above about WP:ATTACK, e.g. "Tried to cover up, but tell the people, go Brandon" (Miami Herald, October 18, 2021, also reporting "The reporter misheard the chants as “Let's Go Brandon,”). I think the WP:COATRACK essay offers a helpful overview of several challenges related to using this BLP as a hook for tangential subjects. Beccaynr (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a journalist only needs notability to get an article, this applies. I tried to have an article deleted (Tom Langmyer) for non-notability and the result was keep because obscure journalists meet some obscure notability guidelines. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Langmyer and some guidelines called WP:JOURNALIST. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a lot of links I could give, but I'd like to highlight this Heavy.com profile as well as this article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The speedwaydigest.com source is labeled "NBC Sports PR" and appears to be a press release. Heavy.com recycles the Frontstretch source already in the Wikipedia article, adds a non-independent link and information from her employer, her Instagram, various references to past "Fuck Joe Biden" chants, and a link and information from her alumni magazine - this is churnalism, and the reliance on the same and similar sources that do not sufficiently support WP:BASIC as outlined above, similarly does not add further support for notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "Let's go Brandon!" phrase has gone viral. You can go on Amazon and buy gear with it. You are not going to put that toothpaste back into the tube. Yes, this is a keeper now. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and create Let's go Brandon! It's obvious that "Let's Go Brandon!" deserves to have an independent article. I will make it since it clearly satisfies the encyclopedia's main guidelines. Best regards! The Stray Dog Talk Page 03:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment above two keep !votes fail to mention subject at all. If that's not evidence that WP:COATRACK applies, I'm baffled. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me guess, you are implying we don't know what we are doing here? And you are baffled. Interesting. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 * '''Keep and create Let's go Brandon!''' It's obvious that "Let's Go Brandon!" deserves to have an independent article. I will make it since it clearly satisfies the encyclopedia's main guidelines. Best regards! [[user:TheStrayDog|<span style="color: #990099">The Stray Dog</span>]] [[user talk:TheStrayDog|<span style="color: #33A744">Talk Page</span>]]  03:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' above two keep !votes fail to mention subject at all. If that's not evidence that [[WP:COATRACK]] applies, I'm baffled. [[User:GhostOfDanGurney|GhostOfDanGurney]] ([[User talk:GhostOfDanGurney|talk]]) 03:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
+** Let me guess, [[Wikipedia:WL|you are implying we don't know what we are doing here?]] And you are ''baffled''. Interesting. [[User:Junglecat|<font color="green">JungleCat</font>]]  <small>[[User talk:Junglecat|<font color="blue">Shiny!</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Junglecat|<font color="blue">Oohhh!</font>]]</small> 04:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)