Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (second nomination)

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 of the debate was Keep pschemp | talk 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kristi Yamaoka

Kristi Yamaoka is nn, and that is even more evident since no substantial biographical improvements have been made to the article in any fashion since the last AfD on March 9 - not even a birthdate. There are also no news articles directly about her in Google News dating after the 11th of March. This article furthermore fails all of the standard and alternative tests in WP:BIO for living people. MSJapan 00:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 00:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I believe in the last AfD I was criticized for crystal-ballism in predicting that she would be forgotten by now. Her 15 minutes are now, officially, over and she is not notable. We may see an occasional "Where is she now" article on a slow news day, but that's it. (May soon be time to drop the entry on the guy Cheney shot, also.) Fan1967 00:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, as she did cause Missouri to ban the "tossing or launching of cheerleaders". She also appeared on the Today Show and VH1's Best Week Ever. Google shows 81,000 results [1], many of which are relevant. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Only [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kristi+Yamaoka%22&hl=en&lr=&start=270&sa=N

Comment She's last month's news. I doubt anyone is going to devote much effort to improving the article now. What you see is what there is, and is likely to be. Fan1967 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And what's wrong with that? Isn't Wikipedia littered with "last month's news"? Grandmasterka 16:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep as per TBC. That's a good point. --Deville (Talk) 02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Given that Wikapedia is not paper I don’t see why we can’t keep her article. Seano1 02:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It needs a lot of work, but sometimes DOBs and other concrete info are hard to find.TKE 03:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Based on the result of the recent first AFD, and no reason given this time (that wasn't rejected last time). Even without a prior AFD, I would vote keep, given the coverage, and the effect of the event. --Rob 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment:However, this is not an event article, this is a bio stub. Evereyone keeps conflating the event with the person: while the event may be notable, the person is not, which is a valid reason, and what I was trying to show the last time too. MSJapan 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could discuss making it an event article on the talk page, as a solution if you wish (e.g. a name change). I'm not recommending it, but it's a valid option, worth discussion. Deletion, as an option, has already been ruled out. We can not allow noms who fail, to simply keep trying until they get what they want. When you're point is "...what I was trying to show the last time too.", you're admitting you're just repeating yourself. What is the practical purpose of arguing the same thing, all over again? --Rob 06:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it's still valid - the article still fails the tests; it did three days after the fact, and it does now two weeks later. The basic issue with this not being AfDed is that people are (and were) confusing short-term popular consciousness (fifteen minutes of fame) with long-term notability (enough to be in an encyclopedia for all time, as it were). The claim before was that it would be expanded, but this has not happened in over two weeks, as evidenced by the history, and therefore is not likely to be expanded in future. The excuse that WP is not paper is not a blanket justification to include any old thing that comes to mind - if policies were meant to be exercised in a vacuum, there would be 47 million articles on absilutely anything on here, and there aren't. It was apparent then and it is apparent now that Kristi Yamaoka is only notable for falling on her head on video and waving her arms, not for any individual accomplishments. If nationwide news were a prerequisite, every disaster on record would need to be here on WP, which is why WP is neither a current events log nor a newspaper. MSJapan 17:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, the previous AfD was not closed as "Keep". It was closed as "No consensus" which has, I believe, somewhat less weight. Fan1967 07:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

History of article creation has shown that once a legit article is created, exapansion follows. I'm watching for sixty days. TKE 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Fan (my cat, who is named "Saluki", will be mad, though). Joe 04:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, barely notable enough. Maybe everything that will ever be written on her is already there, and that's just fine with me. Grandmasterka 08:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, asserts a bit of notability. --Terence Ong 10:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic in the extreme. Marskell 11:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Article survived an AfD nom by the same user just 12 days ago. Obsessively renominating the same articles is highly disruptive and a violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The massive media attention to Ms. Yamaoka's injuries led to changes in the great sport of cheerleading. That's why we need this article. -- JJay 13:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If the nominator cares enough, set a reminder to bring this back in July and I predict you will get a total of four to six votes, all to delete or merge. This is obviously unencyclopedic ephemera, but the bias for including recent news events on WP under the guise of encyclopedic content is simply too strong to allow for rational consensus to form while the item is still relatively fresh. The conflation of news coverage with notability is regrettable but understandable. Cf the Saugeen Stripper, which was roundly declared to be of immense encyclopedic value (ok that's an exaggeration) until the meme wore off and AFD was able happily to merge it back to obscurity where it belongs. Hasta julio. Eusebeus 14:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that is false. The SS AfDs resulted in No Consensus. The merge set off a very nasty edit war. I hope that is not what you are suggesting. -- JJay 14:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are welcome to disagree with my personal view of course and you don't have to be sorry. But re the SS, by WP edit war standards it was more like a minor skirmish, the issue was resolved through a merge which stands as of now, and the 46-20 AfD vote to strip (sorry) the SS of a separate article was generally resolved, so my language may be flippant but the point is germane. And that was when the material was still rather fresh. By July, no-one will care and this can be dealt with without the interference of news-established notability obscuring the issue (which is not to say it would necessarily be deleted - that's just my prediction). Eusebeus 15:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not to belabor the point, but the AfD you keep referring to closed as no consensus- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper 2. Hence, there was no vote to strip, delete or merge anything. I also don't believe that anything was resolved. Furthermore, the comparison with SS is not even germane given the massive difference in news coverage. To my knowledge, the Saugeen Stripper, unlike Ms. Yamaoka, was never a guest on the Today show or featured on primetime news or the recipient of a call from President Bush. The SS also did not have an impact on organized sports. Instead of clouding the issue or playing with crystal balls, you should thus recognize that the keep voters here are perfectly "rational". -- JJay 16:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think if there were a 3rd nomination, by a previously involved party, that would have to be seen as being intentionally disruptive to Wikipedia. --Rob 17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Um, could you clarify? Which article are we talking about now? -- JJay 17:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I was referring to Kristi Yamaoka. Eusebeus suggested that the nom should wait till July, and renominate, to get a more favorable voter turn-out. I feel that type of approach would be disruptive. --Rob 17:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks. My feelings on that were expressed with my initial comment. A failed prod followed by a failed AfD and now a second failed AfD should be an indication that it is time to move on. -- JJay 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's keep some perspective here. I think editors could well make a case that this is not a major event or a major subject, but given the tools typically used to determine relevance, the items listed by jjay to establish notability can distort encycopedic value. That is not to say that arguments for keeping this article are unfounded, but what I do think is somewhat irrational is using conflated google counts spawned by massive reproduction of a few wire stories to show encyclopedic value. Hence, in July, when those have disappeared, the issue can be addressed without this distortion. Per the point about disruption, I don't think renominating this for deletion when some distance has been established can be considered disruptive - that is simply acknowledging the bias of WP inclusion choices. We can disagree on this, surely, without deciding that one or another course of action is simply disruptive. Eusebeus 22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• The argument that a handful of wire stories being replicated across a number of media outlets is an irrational basis for notability is, I think, missing the point. Each media outlet, from your local newspaper through to the biggest names in the business, make editorial decisions on what news items to run of the dizzying array of articles that come down over the wire every day. Every one of the media outlets that ran articles on Kristi Yamaoka thought it was newsworthy enough to be in their particular media outlet's output. It doesn't matter if it is a replica of a news wire article. The fact of the matter is hundreds of media outlets found the incident and the outcomes of it to be sufficiently news worthy. Trying to minimize the impact of this by saying the articles are replicates of each other entirely misses the point. Should we never include notable events in Wikipedia when such events only have one reporter handy to write a story first hand? --Durin 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per TBC Maxamegalon2000 16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• "Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." Keep per Jay. RGTraynor 17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Lots of keep for this notable victim of cheerleading. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not so much for her herself, but because what directly resulted in what happened to her. Stev0 18:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, that it made the news means it has already been "noted". —Pengo 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. She fell on her head, she showed school spirit, the end. Her fifteen minutes of fame are long gone, and this isn't the Short-Attention-Span Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This survived AfD less than two weeks before it was renominated!?! Jcuk 07:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

With a no consensus vote, and a look at the history shows no substantial changes to the article since the 9th, which is almost three weeks ago. The issue is not when it wasa AfDed, but when this bcame non-notable. MSJapan 14:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This individual quintessentially embodies a concept of continuing to do one's job under adversity beyond all expectations. Is there any better example of this concept to date in western culture? This could serve as the ultimate example of this phenomenon for generations to come. At this time, the correct decision is the one already made, which is to keep. WP is the place people should expect to be able to come and find information about transformative events and people such as this. cmsb705 28 March 2006
• Keep: WP:BIO clearly states "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Given all of the press attention, appearance on a number of TV shows, a call from the President of the United States, and ONGOING press coverage, the article clearly passes this requirement. The above statement that there is no news of her since March 11th is false as she's been mentioned in the Chicago Sun-Times and The Independent and been on the Ellen Degeneres Show of late. This article passes WP:BIO. If it doesn't, then a broad range of articles will need to be put up for AfD. For a sampling, see Kenneth Pinyan, Carlie Brucia, Brian Wells, Kayla Rolland, Mathias Rust, Jeremy Glick (September 11 attack victim), Randal McCloy, Roger Olian, Jason McElwain, Karen Louise Ellis, Pamela Rogers Turner. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Limitations_on_renomination states in its first sentence that an article should not be immediately renominated unless there is a good reason for people to change their minds. The last AfD on this was 6 delete to 7 keep. In the 12 days since then, there's not anything to make this bio less notable, in fact rather the opposite. Currently, this AfD is 5 delete to 18 keep. --Durin 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Suppose we have one "temporarily famous" person like this a week. That’s only 52 articles a year. In ten years there would be 520 people added to Wikipedia. There are 80286 entries in the Living people category. If every “person of the week” had been added to Wikipedia since its inception they would constitute less then .5% of the articles on living contemporary people. Ms. Yamaoka is probably closer to a person of the month on top of that. Seano1 21:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Probably person of the year or decade for cheerleaders. She is certainly one of my heros. -- JJay 21:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Worth keeping back then, still worth it now. Quick re-nomination suggests bad faith. -Colin Kimbrell 21:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - people will search for this. Maybe deletable in a couple of years when/if it becomes clear that she has been forgotten, but right now this is a notable personality/event in U.S. college athletics. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Cheerleader#Safety and delete. Thatcher131 19:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Moe ε 01:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Famous but no contribution to mankind. --Masssiveego 04:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Contributing to mankind is not a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. What contributions to mankind did Kenneth Pinyan, Carlie Brucia, Brian Wells and several others (as above) make? --Durin 19:41, 1 April 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.