Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Lowery

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mangojuice^talk 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ava Lowery

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

I'm fairly certain this entry was deleted once before on the basis of not meeting WP:Notability. Jinxmchue 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- Log shows:

20:17, 18 July 2006 Haukurth (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ava Lowery" (Copied from http://www.peacetakescourage.com/page-about.htm with no assertion of permission.)

Yomangani 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as reposted material (I've added speedy tags to the page) Yomangani 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  Keep - since it apparently isn't a repost. I think it meets notability as Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events Yomangani 00:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  Keep - I agree with the above comment Nick xylas 17:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Normal delete per nom. Please note that repost doesn't apply when the new page receives a non-trivial change of content commpared to the deleted page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-The page was originally a reposted copy of web material. I completely changed it and think that given Lowery was interviewed on CNN and received significant blog mileage because of the death-threats from right-wing emailers, she is worth keeping an entry open for. Richardjames444 23:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep--Ava Lowery is a relevant topic for an online encyclopedia. She's gained notoriety by being interviewed across the country by various radio and television programs. You can't delete her entry and keep entries for other people who have made the news. Ava has made the national and international news. I don't even understand why anyone should suggest this should be deleted unless they're just mad that Ava has gained notoriety.--Tracker1312 02:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  — Possible single purpose account: Tracker1312 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep- do it for Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smallbighorn (talk • contribs) .

  — Possible single purpose account: Smallbighorn (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep- Wothwhile article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.217.168.242 (talk • contribs) .

  — Possible single purpose account: 12.217.168.242 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep, as she is a notable blogger who's been featured in national news media. --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - As per Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Ava and her contributions are not widely recognized and she has not received significant press coverage. She's been interviewed a couple times and that's it. Her appeal is limited and temporary. A Wiki entry would only serve as a Wikipedia:Vanity_page. Jinxmchue 14:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability_(people). I also have a problem with the factual accuracy of the article itself, and the use of WP to try to lend credibility to a likely false claim. I already added a dispute tag, and created a talk page with evidence. Crockspot 17:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Further comment - Richardjames444 and I have hashed out the problems I had with the factual accuracy of the article, but this leads me to point out something. What small bit of notability Ava may have I believe is due mainly to the "controversial reaction" to her animation, rather than because of her animation work itself. As the article now properly points out, this "reaction" was overblown, and in the worst case, not even related to the piece in question. I believe the confusion over this "reaction" was used to increase her exposure. Crockspot 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The article lacks citations to multiple independent, reliable sources to establish any assertion of notability or to be verifiable. The "CNN interview" in Other Resources is a link to youtube. CNN would be a reliable source, youtube is not, and the citation is to youtube, not to CNN. (CNN does have a website, so if she was really covered in any significant way by CNN, there ought to be something on their web pages.) I don't know if Progressive magazine counts as a reliable source (how good are they at fact checking? some partisan magazines are good, some don't try, some are in between), but it is the best presently in the article. The only other source is a blog entry, so clearly not a reliable source. It is also at a site with "STUFF FOR PROGRESSIVES, FROM PROGRESSIVES", so does not help generate the sourcing needed to write a neutral, encyclopedic article. GRBerry 01:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Comment: Sorry that I haven't made any other comments. I often visit Wikipedia and read things. This is the first time that I have seen something that was up for deletion that I didn't think should be deleted so that's why I left a comment. Basically at least some of the people urging to delete this post are against what Ava stands for and it has nothing to do with whether or not she has received adaquate press coverage. For example, Jinxmchue who urges for deletion has been cited for vandalism on the Democratic Underground entry and personal attacks on their talk page. Crockspot has also been cited for vandalizing the Democratic Underground page. The fact that people across the planet have heard of Ava, that she is doing something political (her blog/forum) and artistic (her animations) at such a young age, and that she has been interviewed by multiple news sources should be enough that she have an entry on Wiki.--Tracker1312 05:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Before personally attacking other editors, I would think that one would have noticed that those warnings were deemed to be, and indeed were, unfounded, and made in bad faith. The warning editor was himself warned for posting those warnings. Crockspot 17:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Crockspot. These accusations of vandalism to the DU page were made in bad faith by the same person and were never justified. As far as any personal attacks, I apologized for the ones I made and agreed to refrain from any more. I have stuck to that agreement despite other people not making the same agreement and continuing on in their personal attacks. Finally, there is no "fact that people across the planet have heard of Ava." That's a completely unprovable non-NPOV that would never be allowed to remain if it were put into the Wiki entry. I know of many children younger, more talented, more artistic and more publicly active than Ava and they don't have their own Wiki vanity pages. "Ava Lowery" is not a household name like "Cindy Sheehan" and the few media blurbs she's gotten hardly justify a Wiki entry. If she were to somehow keep her name in the "mainstream" news week after week, then perhaps you'd have some justification. Jinxmchue 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• please take into account the POV issues of some of the deletionists when deciding what happens to this page. Let's have this page stand or fall on its own merits or lack of them, rather than having it be a victim of broader ongoing conflicts not related to Wikipedia Richardjames444 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC) My apologies. Let's remember to assume good faith Richardjames444 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That said, I would like to thank Crockspot for our succesful negotiations on how to incorporate the alleged death threat issue. He was willing to compromise in a way that makes me think that his input here is genuine. Richardjames444 14:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep: I can imagine someone looking her up, we might as well have an article that tries to be accurate and balanced, probably there won't be a lot of those on her. - Jmabel | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.