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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:10, 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]

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]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 *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. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 *'''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. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
+::We are not re-running the DRV here. That there were BLP issues for excluding that material was endorsed. --[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 21:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)