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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:46, 4 June 2007

Allison Stokke

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.--Doc^g 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]

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]

Invalid reason. DRV consensus has endoresed the removal of that information per WP:BLP. Is she notable without it?--Doc^g 20:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV did nothing of the sort. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, too much lingo here! I'm lost! Either stick to plain language, or explain what DRV and BLP refer to.--Plainsong 21:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP refers to this WP:BLP, DRV refers to WP:DRV. But Doc is wrong anyways about what was declared anyways, see my and Jeff's comments below. JoshuaZ 21:38, 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.--Doc^g 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]
- So for no legitimate reason. Got it. (Translation: Friday offers a poor rationale for deletion, and the subject meets WP:BIO) --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 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. --Doc^g 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: [1] 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). 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]
Delete or merge to some "list of national record-holders" somewhere. Not particularly notable. --Carnildo 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 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]

A random sampling of that seems to reveal many articles discussing the professional careers these folks have gone on to. Friday (talk) 21:25, 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 ([2] and [3]), along with separate articles in the LA Times [4] 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]
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]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 **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. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 **: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. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
-* '''Delete''' A non-public person that does not want media attenion. Her short fame comes from being unwanted harassing attention not her high school athletic achievements. This does not support an article per notability issues. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
+* '''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. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)