Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlin Upton

Caitlin Upton

This article raises issues concerning Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. A DRV consensus has concluded that the question of policy compliance is reasonably in dispute. Per the recommendation of the ArbCom, the article will be restored, protected blank with history available, and listed at AfD. Suggestions for potential improving revisions to the article may be made during the AfD at the article's talk page. Deletion is on the table, as are other suggestions which make use of the sourced content. Xoloz 02:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - How are we supposed to discuss a blanked article with only a poorly written stub deep in the article history? This needs to be unprotected for editing and improvements immediately. --Oakshade 02:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question answered at your talk. Unprotection prior to AfD conclusion would violate the directive of ArbCom. Xoloz 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and immediate unprotect - An internationally very famous person. Passes WP:BIO and WP:N. Is the subject of multiple secondary sources from all over the world. Over 10 12 million Youtube views. In the top 20 of all time youtube views. The idea that someone who willingly competed in a nationally televised national beuty pageant and all the work that entails, is a private individual per WP:BLP is non-sensical. If this was a private citizen who made a fub at a local spelling bee and a parent videotaped her, that would be a BLP issue, certainly not this. And i

***I second the keep and unprotect. 24.251.84.221 09:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ronically, this person has received much more media coverage than Hilary Cruz, the actual Miss Teen USA! --Oakshade 02:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If anyone who gets their 15 minutes of fame is classed as notable then WP is going to have to upgrade its servers big time. She's a blonde who flubbed her responses at a ~~cattle-market~~ beauty pageant, so what? Notable != famous or notorious or infamous. So far she appears to be one of life's also-rans, an average ER intern is more notable than her. Famous for being famous. It's a slippery slope when bimbos get WP articles for being a bimbo on live TV.--WebHamster 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we aren't... storage space is so cheap compared to other things the foundation spends money on that it's not even a concern. We could have 10 million articles and not even use up the space already just sitting around empty. Saving space should never be a reason to delete an article... especially considering, short of a developer wiping the data manually, deleted articles still stay on the servers. The idea than an "ER intern" is more notable than someone who was viewed 15 million times and appeared in the national media many times... that's just wrong. --W.marsh 22:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment- internet meme- I've seen it posted on lady's forums I frequent etc. If her performance has been/is soon discussed in reputable sources, then include.Merkinsmum 02:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main list of MSCT winners. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No real question of notability, given the youtube stats or appearances of the video on late night talk shows. And I think it can be reliably sourced. For example: like this. I'm sure other documentation in the media can be found. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep some level of notabilty as a Miss South Carolina Teen USA even before she competed at Miss Teen USA (although this in itself not enough to warrant notability) coupled wtih the extaordinary media coverage (inlcuding international press) of her gaffe. There is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead that in relation to pageants ia number of barely-notable things can on the whole make a subject notable (that case involved a non-stage level winner who had won a number of local titles, and who was the first contestant to quit America's Next Top Model). PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add a disclaimer that I was the author of the original article at this page (perhaps any admins should also look at that version if possible) but that I "db-author"-ed it after an AFD resulted in the deletion of other Miss Teen USA 2007 contestant articles. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lauren Upton not only deserves an article for being Miss South Carolina Teen USA but also for being 3rd runner up in a national beauty pagent, she also is even more deserving of an article because of the publicity she has receieved on countless National and International media sources. I will list links to references that could be used in the event her article is unprotected, note they come from all over the World. Ranked 37 All Time video on Youtube

Her Official Bio, FOX, Boston Mass, USA,New Zealand,UK, New Zealand, France, Canada, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], There are plenty more references...actually there are THOUSANDS more but I don't have the time for them all. I just want people to recognize whether you like to admit it to yourself or not she is indeed notable and is deserving of an article. I do strongly believe that a very well sourced article can and should be created. --Joebengo 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notable is not the same as famous, noteworthy is not the same as press worthy. She has achieved very little other than to make a fool of herself in front of millions. Famous for being famous is not notability. In a year's time no-one will even remember her.--WebHamster 12:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is kept I'm not sure what the appropriate title is. Her full name is "Lauren Caitlin Upton" but she usually goes by "Caitlin Upton" (as seen on the Miss South Carolina Teen USA website" and her nickname is actually "Caite". Only after the video came out was she more commonly referred to as "Lauren Caitlin Upton" (because the MUO releases things using their full name). I think "Caitlin Upton" would still be the most appropriate title. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per WP:NOT#NEWS - Yes, she got attention for her goof on the show, but is there really historic notability for that? I do not see it. Miss Teen <state> is not really an award worthy of conferring notability either. Either way, I just dont see historic notability Corpx 05:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because has multiple reliable sources. BLP1E is not an issue as she is a public figure. -- Y not? 06:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Currently, the issue is covered at Miss Teen USA 2007, where it is appropriate to cover this. Since there are no sources that give any information about her beyond where she placed in the pageant, other than about this one embarassing event, I don't think we have enough to sustain a biography. If someone wants to write an article about the meme/internet phenomenon, I think it would be premature at this point, but it should not be titled like a biography. Mango juice^talk 13:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This article deserves a redirect to the article about the event, where the incident is adequately mentioned. The person has no other notability and the article has already proven to be a target for vandals. Making this a protected redirect would be per precedent of similar youtube subjects. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not, internet phenomenon type people who get many millions of views and cross over into appearances on various national media programs are the new notable... Wikipedia must adapt or run the risk of becoming obsolete to many of our readers. People come here for what we do have, no one comes here and says "Wow, they don't have an article on X, what a great encyclopedia!". At any rate, I don't think BLP deletion should apply to properly sourced articles on public people (voluntarily participating in a nationally televised competition where you're identified by name and so on... that just makes you public). Alternatively, redirect. As always the article should be editable during the AFD... that's always the best time to get it improved. I don't buy that an AFD box being up will make people more likely to insert libel or something... it will just mean there will be more eyes on the article to make sure it progresses correctly. --W.marsh 14:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Balance the harm done to the subject for a Wikipedia article that could remain online for years vs. the harm to readers of Wikipedia who don't have another page to go to (and throw in "harm" to Wikipedia's reputation for not having a page) and it's a no-brainer. We don't need to have an article just because we can have an article. Our coverage of the universe isn't seriously hurt in any way by not having an article. She, on the other hand, would be hurt simply because she said something dumb once in front of a camera. I think somehow Wikipedia readers will survive without an article on her. We should all be so lucky that our more embarassing moments aren't captured on video. If there were some compelling reason to put a check on our compassion for another human being, then we might need coverage (as we do with, say, Larry Craig). But we don't have to check our compassion at the door just because we're building an encyclopedia. Noroton 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and immediate unprotect - Over 15 million people have seen the youtube video of this girl--her name is becoming synonymous with inarticulate speech. In fact, I hadn't seen the video; a friend of mine referenced her when she was unable to properly articulate what she wanted to say to me. This goes to show that this young woman has entered the zeitgeist in a big way. --TallulahBelle 21:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to Miss Teen USA 2007 per Mangojuice. This will put her answer to the interview question into context, and thus avoid giving it undue weight, while still containing the information that people may be looking for. --Metropolitan90 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many people are also looking for more biographical information; background, previous work (she's a model appearing in national magazines [11]), future plans and detailed reaction of the attention, i.e. her Today Show appearance. This is far too much off-topic info for the Miss Teen USA 2007 article.--Oakshade 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definatly noteable, her history/bio should be provided - having a NPoV article on this girl is a good thing. - Fosnez 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for winning the state beauty contest, but cut the section on the "infamous moment". It really is just an example of someone not finding the right words after receiving a silly question. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a page with names of other contestants of the pageant or other winners of South Carolina. Unless she starts a prolific film/music career where she releases several Oscar/Grammy-nominated albums and becomes an icon of cool becoming more notable I don't see the need for her own article just to comment on her goofy answer. Thief12 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Teen USA 2007. She has no notability outside this and the "infamous moment." There is not enough biographical information available to create an article without violating WP:BLP. -- Kesh 15:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies to "essentially low profile" people which this person isn't, either before or after the "infamous moment." --Oakshade 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to all living persons. And a participant in a beauty contest who did not win is still "low profile." The fact is that this incident is the only thing that makes her high profile. Undue weight would be given to this incident, and there's not enough facts available to write a biographical article about her. The incident itself is already covered at Miss Teen USA 2007. -- Kesh 16:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who willingly participated in a nationally televised national beauty contest, not to mention winning a state championship and willingly going on the Today Show is not "low profile". Biographical information such as background, schooling, other work (she is national magazine model) is all outside the incident and off-topic in the Miss Teen USA 2007 article. The term "essentially low profile" is actually in WP:BLP. The standards of accuracy and verifiability is what applies to all living persons.--Oakshade 16:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, her background, schooling, etc. does not belong in the Miss Teen USA article. It does not follow, however, that this means she gets a full article of her own. One appearance on the Today Show and participating in a beauty pageant do not confer notability. I've said my piece, and feel no further need to defend my decision. Make your own argument, Oakshade, as I have no interest in continuing this debate with you. -- Kesh 18:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just participating in a national beauty pageant that made her notable (the youtube view count is now over 12 million). The point about participating in it and appearing on the Today Show was demonstrating this is not a private "low profile" person. --Oakshade 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She received enough media attention from this incident to make her notable Computerjoe 's talk 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per me not understanding how it betters the sum of human knowledge to torture the poor individual ad infinitum for one ill-fated instant. Perhaps I simply lack your appetite for pain and humiliation, dear Inclusionists.
Also, Repremand the ArbCom for imposing such a silly mandate. If they wanted to protect this page, fine, but don't both protect it and request the community to judge its fate at the same time. I appreciate the nom is merely adhering to their request, but I am under no such obligation, so I wish to put on record my disapproval of this kind of flip-flopping antics. Methinks the Committee should have picked one course to follow and stick with it, as opposed to what seems to me an extremely indecisive action. --Agamemnon2 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your non-inclusion opinion, I agree wholeheartedly regarding having an AfD over a blanked and protected article. It's an inherent flaw in the AfD and will taint the final outcome, whatever that may be. --Oakshade 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom did not lay down this decision. They wrote a principle, and Xoloz used it to back his decision at the DRV. I myself said in the DRV we should focus the debate on inclusion, not process, but the debate ended up talking about process so much it couldn't be used to settle the issue, so Xoloz sent it back here, and I think it was a fine decision. Mango juice^talk 19:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While yes it might pass 'Notability' guidelines, just because she was in the news or on the Internet does not mean that its worthy of an article. WP:NOT Trivial Persuit Q ^{T C} 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes all guidelines, is now world famous. Won her state pageant, competed at a national level in a televised event and made a name for herself, also has over 15 million youtube views (multiple versions of her video) plus coverage on tv networks, newspapers, etc. So why keep this out? If article is not deleted, I thikn we should keep the whole story in, including her comeback on the Today Show, not just the one famous moment. If we're looking to delete articles, there's much lower hanging fruit. See Miss Understood Pajluvah 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]