Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (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 was delete. Aside from the meme, which is not mentioned in the article (and does not seem to be mentionable, given the discussion on the article's talk page), there is absolutely nothing provided that satisfies WP:BIO; it's just a short biography about a high school athlete, and nothing else has been shown here that shows that she is notable in any way besides the meme (it has been established that she is not notable for anything other than records she no longer holds). The arguments for deletion thus seem to be stronger than those for keeping, thus my decision. --Coredesat 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification I must re-emphasize the fact that I deleted the article per WP:BIO and lack of consensus over whether the internet aspect of the subject was worth adding to the article. Apart from that, this is a WP:BIO/WP:NOT case. --Coredesat 02:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allison Stokke

Allison Stokke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The result of the recent deletion review:

Original BLP deletion endorsed; however, there is agreement -- even among endorsers of deletion -- that a non-CSD A7 stub could exist here. It will need to be AfD'ed, because even I'm not certain whether a national high-school record-holder passes WP:BIO. Per the suggestion of several, including Guy and Chris Parham, the article will be semi-protected for the AfD, escalating to full-protection if necessary. Just as the subject does not deserve coverage of incidental negative publicity, she deserves to have her positive achievements considered for inclusion in Wikipedia, alongside other athletes. – Xoloz 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)

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)

• 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)
  • Ehm...she is an adult. Lampman 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Friday.--Doc^g 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • I've pointed to it several times, now. It's United States records in track and field. Uncle G 22:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It looks like those are plain-old-records, not specifically for kids. Her records are all of the "best among people in this grade" type, aren't they? Friday (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Bear in mind that it's a vastly incomplete article (see the edit summaries). There's no reason that it could not be expanded with the relevant classes. The important question is what that class actually is, and whether it indeed is a formal category of records at all. The only sources that I can find describe it as a "freshman record" (Eugene W. Fields. "Newport Harbor's Stokke wins pole vault", The Orange County Register, 2004-06-06. ) or the "Orange County record" (Steve Fryer. "Stokke sets sights on unprecedented heights", The Orange County Register, 2005-03-11. ). Uncle G 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DES: what record does she hold? She has a "2nd best" according to the source that's there, but it's not clear that's a 2nd best of all time or just 2nd best this year. Can you clarify, with a source? Mangojuice^talk 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • United States records in track and field is what you are looking for. Uncle G 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Strong Keep All of these three are notable without the meme. She deserves an article for her track merits. This satisfies WP:BLP, and WP:BIO. I don't see what the fuss is all about. Oh, and this took me like 2 minutes. AGF people.
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
• so, there's at least three that make her notable without the meme. Any questions? McKay 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • DRV did nothing of the sort. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • I have a question. Those look like routine local news coverage of routine high school sporting events. Are you saying that anyone who gets that level of coverage deserves an article? Seriously? If that's the case, then half the people I know deserve articles. Mangojuice^talk 22:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe you should read WP:N (again) McKay 14:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The level of coverage is much higher than that of routine local coverage as can be seen by a glance at the google news hits and archived news hits from before this story broke. JoshuaZ 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

  With every meme-free story people have dug up she probably just barely passes WP:BIO. "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability." As for other concerns it seems to me that having a meme-free article on her (which will probably get a high Google rank) is probably ethical though there are arguments both ways. On one hand it's nice to have an article treating her as an athlete rather than a sex object, on the other hand us having an article about her as an athlete may lead people to think: "See! She's legitimately famous as an athlete, hence she is a public person, hence she can be legitimately adored as a sex object." So much doubt... "Do no harm" sounds nice enough in principle but if strictly adhered to it leads to "do nothing at all". I just don't know. Haukur 09:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • I'd say constantly asking people to do your homework for you is bad form. Do you have actual evidence rather than vigorous handwaving? --Calton | Talk 00:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Friday and WP:BIO. Sean William @ 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
• Keep per Jeff, and pxpls. —M (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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) (Late edit: all of the above is still true but I'm becoming more convinced by the argument that the penumbra or spirit of BLP suggests that we should minimize articles of this sort, I'm therefore switching to abstaining until I can think this through more JoshuaZ)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • I've re-read the closure - it said nothing of the sort. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Some recent competition data here: [5] Tori Anthony doing quite well. Haukur 21:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Delete. Notability can be debated, but I’d prefer we err on the side of human decency. Lampman 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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). And she has given an interview with the Washington Post about the very topic in controversy. Once someone gives an interveiw, it is very hard to argue that the person has no willingness to be a public figure. 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)
        • We probably need a Godwin's Law analogue for when Argumentum Ab Brandt is invoked in a deletion discussion. Entering an athletics competition is not the same as seeking publicity. Uncle G 23:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Hmm, Brandt would plausibly be third declension, so that would Argumentum ad Brandtem I think. JoshuaZ 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to some "list of national record-holders" somewhere. Not particularly notable. --Carnildo 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on what? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps based upon the fact that the only verifiable content to be gleaned from the arguments put forward so far constitutes an entry in a list of records. Uncle G 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • We also have some still in high school, who happen to be considered top in the nation. WP:BIO says top-level amateurs are notable too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What records are you specifically referring to? Have you actually looked for sources yourself? Or are you simply relying upon what other people have said? Uncle G 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • What I said is that they should not have articles anyway. Croctotheface 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability established by front-page article of Washington Post ([6] and [7]), along with separate articles in the LA Times [8] and others. Neier 21:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • I don't object a well-reasoned argument saying "I don't like having an article on this person, but I feel it's necessary" (though I feel it's misguided)... but I don't see it having been raised in this discussion yet. "Notability asserted by foo and bar" is not one of those arguments, it's a mindless fetishistic incantation of "it fulfils this criteria therefore we should have an article". These "discussions" rapidly degenerate into mindless repetition of arbitrary standards we made up; whatever happened to people actually trying to exercise editorial judgement? Shimgray | talk | 21:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • We learned better. We learned, from a lot of experience, that basing our decisions upon subjective judgements on the parts of individual editors, exactly the thing that you are talking about, led to chaos. Uncle G 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I am not asking for immediate decisions by single users; what I want is to see the community actually making a serious attempt to discuss a serious issue, not glibly quoting abitrary thresholds at each other. We are on, what, the third or fourth discussion over this article, and we're still getting the same "does/does not fulfil Criteria A, B, C and D" parroted recurringly by most participants in what ought to be a sensible editorial debate! Shimgray | talk | 22:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Saying that a subject does or does not fulfil a set of criteria, and specifying the reasons why or why not, is a perfectly sensible editorial debate. The only reason for this second debate is the early closure of the first one. It is nothing to do with editors using criteria to judge an article and citing sources in support of their arguments. Uncle G 23:30, 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. FloNight 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• comment for the record, a 5 minute search turned up many additional articles about her pole vaulting by itself. For example, we have this one and this this one (registration required) and many more. JoshuaZ 21:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That first article devotes a grand total of 19 words to this person. It's not in-depth material. Uncle G 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, this was simply what came from a 5 minute search. If one looks at the current article it has references to multiple articles that are just about her athletic achievements. JoshuaZ 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (and I am tempted to just do it, though I will resist) on the ground that having gotten rid of the problematic material at DRV, the present debate whether to have a borderline-notable-at-best article on the harmless material is nothing but a drama-magnet. Newyorkbrad 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just do it--Doc^g 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, please, no. That's all we need. If this gets a "fair shake" at AFD perhaps we can all get on with our lives? Friday (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Friday, that's what I thought. But this is absurd. All we are doing in re-running the DRV.--Doc^g 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • It is a bit absurd, yes. But can we please please please only have this one last absurd thing? If it gets speedied this time, then we'll really be running a deletion review. And that would be even more absurd. Perhaps we should just turn off the wiki and pretend this never existed. Friday (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • It shouldn't be speedied. It claims significance, that's all it has to do to pass A7. And the idea of speedy deleting as a "drama magnet" is, I'm sure, a black joke - surely we know by now that doing so would cause more drama, not less. Not to mention Xoloz's closure deserves more respect than that. Mangojuice^talk 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, I didn't do it, for exactly the reasons you gave, but it was still tempting. Are 4-1/2 more days of this going to be helpful? Newyorkbrad 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DRV did not give any sort of authority to remove any material, as no material that is sourced is problematic. Thank you for resisting your temptations, but your point of view isn't consistent with policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. A notable athlete (per WP:BIO) who has become even more notable due to recent non-trivial coverage in some of the most notable sources available (LA Times, NY Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Washington Post front page). No BLP issues and Wikipedia contains content you might find objectionable. Prolog 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We've already endorsed the BLP removals. This is a different debate on whether the athletics are notable. Youre!vote is irrelevant tot he issue at hand.--Doc^g 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No; this is a new debate, Wikipedia is not censored, the Internet meme content is relevant and ethical point of views and non-neutral !votes are irrelevant. Also, her personal best is actually close to the Finnish national record, which would put her close to reaching the IAAF World Championships in Athletics. Like I said, she met WP:BIO before the Internet fame. Prolog 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, we have not endorsed any BLP removals. Please quit making this statement, it is not based in fact. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We should keep it because "Wikipedia contains content you might find objectionable"? That is the most insulting, arrogant, glib, meaningless piece of posturing I have seen here in thirty months. Shimgray | talk | 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No, we should keep this per WP:BIO and WP:V. Prolog 22:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Ethical points of view are irrelevant? That certainly qualifies as the most despicable statement I've seen in a very long while. ➥the Epopt 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • An encyclopedia with millions of users and millions of ethical points of view is no place to promote personal ethics. Prolog 23:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • It is, however, the correct place to promote an ethical code which says - we have the opportunity to make an encyclopedia, thus we have the duty to make it good. Glibly pretending we have no responsibility for the effects and implications of the material we decide to include is intellectually dishonest and ethically bankrupt. Has the project really sunk this low? Shimgray | talk | 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • You are erroneously conflating "the project" with the opinion of a single editor. Please refrain from such generalizations, especially given that it is patently obvious that there are other editors with markedly different opinions. Hyperbole is not going to aid this discussion. Uncle G 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I looked into it, and Stokke's "2nd best" pole vault was 4.14m, which is way off the US women's record which stands at at least 4.84m. And I'm not even sure what "2nd best" in the source refers to: 2nd best nationally this year? Among high school students only? Among high school students this year only? No, I don't think she cuts it as an athlete just yet. Mangojuice^talk 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, we're not allowed to edit the article right now, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have reduced the protection level to autoconfirmed now. Prolog 23:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's clear that her athletic accomplishments don't yet meet our standards for inclusion, although she may well go on to do so. Would those who wish to document the other publicity she's received find adding her situation as a case study in Internet privacy or some other similar article to be an appropriate solution? That seems to be the context in which this issue has been covered in the major news media. (That question also applies to those who feel that coverage of the incident for which she's received press mention recently violates WP:BLP - would covering it in the context of general internet privacy concerns make sense?) JavaTenor 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, why is well-sourced positive content being removed from the article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per multiplicity of sources and undeniable fame. The Washington Post coverage will be forever, so saying that a Wikipedia article is forever as a reason to invoke WP:BLP is disingenious. -N 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete — her athletic achievements do not rise to the level of notability, and her role as inspiration for a passing fad is dramatically out-weighed by her right to privacy ➥the Epopt 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. Her athletic achievements do meet our guidelines (see WP:BIO) for inclusion. 2. There is no policy for "right to privacy". This is an encyclopedia and we only document what reliable sources write. Prolog 23:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Her athletic achievements do not meet our guidelines (see WP:BIO) for inclusion. There is no policy for "right to privacy" because we are not (well, okay, most of us are not) mindless automatons who must have policy dictating every jot and tittle that we write or choose not to write. We have (well, okay, some of us have) editorial judgment and ethical consciences. ➥the Epopt 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources satisfies WP:BIO, and there is plenty just about her athletic achievements.[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Prolog 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Spot87 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, once you get past the lurid and sensationalist material which was rightly deleted, there is simply not much there. We generally don't, and shouldn't, provide biographies of high school athletes; consider also the primary inclusion policy, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Christopher Parham (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable as a high-school athlete (there are far too many high school record holders for that to be a means of establishing notability). The Internet meme is a current event, not an encyclopedic topic. Bottom line: we have a better product without including a dubious article like this. If she later clears the notability hurdle (no pun), the article can be created then. --Ssbohio 23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The relevant criteria is WP:BIO, which she undoubtedly meets. If you need to look at WP:N, she even more clearly meets that, with significant coverage in reliable sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:BIO is merely a notability criteria guideline, users are entitled to use their judgment to apply or not apply a particular test as the circumstances warrant. --bainer (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Notability for both athletic achievements and for the net meme affair, per the numerous sources given above. Both issuies should be fairly accounted for in the article. Tarc 23:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge to List of track and field recordholders Delete - Sources available suggest she holds no national records. FCYTravis 01:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She seems, per the numerous newspaper articles cited, to have substantial coverage of her athletic achievements in multiple independent and reliable sources, satisfying WP:N. I do not see a standard as some have proposed for how many meters of height she must clear to have an article. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and I have not heard that we are about to run out of server space and must limit article to those athletes achieving some stated objective measure of prowess. She gets 1,170,000 Google hits. A Wikipedia article about her athleticism will surely help to maintain NPOV balance with any other fame for those doing Google searches. Her interview published on the front page of the Washington Post indocates she is not utterly opposed to any mention of her name, and its inclusion as a reference would be appropriate, especially since it provides an overview of her sports achievements. Edison 23:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. High school achievements are not sufficient for notability under WP:BIO. This article wouldn't even have been created if not for all this silliness about her pictures being posted on the Internet, and that's just not an encyclopedic subject. WarpstarRider 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, this easily meets WP:BIO through multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Prolog 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — The subject is known outside high school track and field exclusively due to a flash-in-the-pan round of Internet postings that never could have occurred without violations of a track newspaper's copyright and the subject's own right to privacy, and which her attorney father has quickly been clamping down. There's a significant question whether a Wikipedia article would violate her right to privacy, given that she has never sought any public attention beyond by competing in high school sports and doing well at it, and had no reasonable expectation of public attention beyond, at most, the kind of reasonably low-profile and very temporary coverage typical for high school sports. The comments by David.Monniaux on WP:BLP in the previous nomination, to the effect that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry...." etc., should have been the last word on the matter. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [disclaimer: this note is intended only as general commentary, not as legal advice.]
• Strong Delete - the Washington Post article actually proves she's not notable, not that she is notable. Nick 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:BLP violation, and WP:POINT recreation. And since when did multiple non-trivial coverage become the mantra for keeping every crap internet meme? Corvus cornix 15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break 1

• Keep - She is notable by achieving the second-best pole vault record in the nation Bleh999 00:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please read your sources carefully: she has achieved the second-best pole vault result for a female high-school senior in the US this far in 2007, not the second-best US result of all time. --bainer (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • that does not make her any less notable in current events, we have a lot more useless and non notable individuals on wikipedia, don't discount her you have never heard of her, she has been widely reported in the media and makes her notable enough for inclusion, remember wikipedia is not a democracyWP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, hence this vote should be about keeping to the standard of what is currently allowed on wikipedia not just because she is unknown to some people (because of their geographical location) Bleh999 03:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Who said anything about having heard of her or not? I was simply pointing out that your statement was incorrect, or at least missing several important qualifiers. --bainer (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • many of those voting to delete are outside the US hence their claim of her being non notable maybe just because of where they live, hence not really a valid reason for deletion Bleh999 05:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Reaverdrop, who's put the arguments far more clearly than I can. National age-group records? Not notable. Per WP:BIO, athletes are generally notable if they are "competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis" or they are "competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." High school track and field assuredly does not qualify. Js farrar 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. FNMF 00:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• This athlete wouldn't want to be kept here by strength of male hormones (and yes, it does matter in marginal cases if the subject of an article doesn't want to be covered). Let's delete the article, but that isn't to say that her athletic feats must not be mentioned, in context and given due weight, in an article about American high school athletics, if we have any such articles. --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• A lot of the aforementioned arguments for having a biographical article on this person are based upon statements that this person holds "national records". They appear, however, to be repetitions of received knowledge that lacks specifics. Friday, Mangojuice, and (even, albeit not explicitly) Doc glasgow have all asked the same question: What records are these? Specifics of what the records in fact are, when they were set, and what age category and level of competition they were set for, are lacking at the moment. The article in the Washington Post doesn't say. I've looked for sources, and what I have turned up so far (cited above) only specifies "freshman record" and "Orange County record". Without citations of sources giving specifics, the arguments put forward above have a verifiability problem. Uncle G 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, and I refer you to my comment just above in response to Bleh999. --bainer (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I actually edit conflicted with you in replying to that very same rationale. I discarded my reply upon seeing yours. Uncle G 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • On records I was poking around this the other day. USATF and IAAF don't focus on juniors much, but Track and Field News has a records page that seems accurate, but is a couple years out of date. The record breaking is therefore certified by news articles, which google archives turns up plenty of. (unfortunately they're mostly down) profile from 2006 confirms other facts. This one is detailed: [16] [17] this one shows her with the state records. I'm not sure about finding a national recordkeeping body, but one of the pay stories is from virginia and refers to her as the national record holder (a year or so ago) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, found it: top sophomore in the country Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And her freshman mark got broken: [18] Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Also her sophomore mark, by the same girl: [19] Interesting. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • So then she's not a record holder anymore? Delete - Not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Night Gyr, thanks for digging that up. I think this further solidifies my opinion that these athletic accomplishments do not make her notable enough. A national overall record would be one thing, but a state-wide, age-limited record (especially one that's been broken since) just shouldn't cut it. Mangojuice^talk 02:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • She still holds the state record, the national one was broken by a Texan. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly seems to hold WP's interest. Eventually might be merged into separate articles on track records and internet phenomena but I've heard reasonable arguments that suggest (for now) to keep. Jussen 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • For what possible purpose? We do not have articles on any single other person who is only notable for holding a high school record. Rebecca 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. She is a high school record holder. There are no other articles on Wikipedia about people solely notable for this. If it wasn't for the masturbating neanderthal bloggers, we wouldn't be here at all, and as it has (thank god) apparently been agreed that having that in the article would be the mother of all BLP violations, keeping an article on her in any form makes absolutely no sense. Rebecca 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP. There are other articles about people solely notable for being high school record holders and athletes, it seems to me. Jordan Hasay There are other youth athletes with articles about their playing on youth or high school teams A.J. Green James McCarthy (footballer) etc. I think the accusations and namecalling are violating the assumption of good faith. I've never heard of this person before skimming AFD. Felisse 22:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable in my opinion. Got 1,120,000 searches on Google and seems relevant to her. -ScotchMB 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This person is a fairly successful high school athlete, which is nice, but not sufficient to warrant retaining this article, which - let's be honest - for all the posturing is really only being defended in order to propagate the meme. There has been much said about sources, but for that, please see my comments here. "Google tests" are largely useless - it is necessary to look at the nature and quality of the sources. Stokke gets mentioned a few times in the sports sections of local newspapers, and has answered one or two questions for reporters from those papers. The majority of the coverage is like this, lists of competition results, or this, a passing mention in a discussion of other athletes. The coverage is absolutely borderline, and does not mandate having an article. The whole issue of the meme is just an extra reason to delete. There really is no cause to have a biographical article now. --bainer (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. We needn't be bound by our own guidelines, which we created, after all; least of all, notability policy when it says keep against common sense. "Ignore All Rules" really is policy for a reason. The critical question, it seems to me, is whether having a Wikipedia article lessens or increases the harm to Stokke. My feeling is that, like the Washington Post article (which seems to have spurred the shutdown of http://www.allisonstokke.com/ ), a Wikipedia article neutrally discussing the meme and Stokke and her family's reaction to it (as described in the WaPo article) will on the whole be beneficial. The only people to find the article will be those who already know of Stokke, so if they are not going to a Wikipedia article, they will inevitably be going somewhere worse (from Stokke's perspective), where they may only get the drooling internet fan side of things. If the choice is between an article that only discusses Stokke as a high school athlete and no article at all, the obvious choice is to delete. If the choice is between an article that includes the meme story and no article, I would tend toward "keep, semi-protect, and monitor very carefully."--ragesoss 01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Really, that is a very tenuous claim to notability in the current version of the article, and we would not have had this article at all if it were not for that horrible episode of drooling madness. -- Donald Albury 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Anyone that follow high school sports closely knows that high school records are almost meaningless because unlike colleges and universities, there is not uniform participation and accurate recording for high school athletic events. The reporting of records is mostly voluntary by interested coaches or officials. Because of this, I'm reluctant to put much weight into the notability of high school record holders. FloNight 01:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't mean to diminish her achievements, since anyone involved with college-level vaulting has known about her and a few other high school stars for at least a couple years. (What she vaulted as a high school sophomore would have won most college meets, and place even in many U.S. division Ia conference championships.) However, she does not hold a general national high school record. She held the very age-specific first-year and second-year national records. Would the person holding the age 70-79 U.S. national record automatically deserve an article? I don't think so. The subject here has, of course, received more press than the typical age 16 or age 70-79 record holders, and it's unfortunate that the subject became first known outside vaulting for something other than vaulting. Gimmetrow 01:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was about to add an opinion a few minutes ago, but now I think I'll Take a Step Back for a bit. I'd heartily recommend the practice to everyone else at this point, as I don't see how so many edits so fast is leading towards anything approaching Consensus. If there was ever a moment to just chill before hitting 'Save Page', this one is probably it, people. LaughingVulcan 01:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Her record as an athlete does not make her notable as such at this stage. While her photographs have gotten some media attention, her notability at this stage does not overcome BLP concerns. Indeed, the article as it is could be speedy deleted as not asserting notability. If her athletic career progresses, we should have an article on her then.Capitalistroadster 02:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Her status as an apparently quite successful high school pole vaulter does not, in itself, present notability. All that's left is her internet status, which I think is sufficiently weighed by the BLP issues. Ral315 » 02:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment what BLP concern? Everything is well sourced. JoshuaZ 02:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's no longer a sufficient argument. FCYTravis 02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • His argument is fine; yours is not. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the fact that some blogs and such made a stir about her attractiveness, as reported by reliable sources such as the Washington Post. Once can report on salacious events in a non-salacious manner, and a mention of the events is not a BLP violation. Also, it might help keep the discussion out of the gutter if people like you [20] and Rebecca [21] stop posting these rather offensive and disgusting allegations. Calm down and take a breather. Tarc 05:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep there is no reason not to have articles on the best HS athletes if we have good sources for them. If there were 70-79 year olds who could vault to the level of major conference eligibility, I'd think they would indeed be notable--but of course they would have been notable for their undoubtedly higher earlier records. This isn't a matter of privacy or BLP--if the public notice had been for unfortunate things she would be later ashamed of I would say very differently. It will look a little silly adding her next year when she's at college and seeing all this. This discussion is already an excellent opportunity for Wikjipedia Review to make fun of us. DGG 02:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP prohibits as it always did the addition of unsourced controversial material. Her athletic accomplishment are , however, both well sourced and non controversial. The meme is perhaps controversial, but well sourced, and I do not see how that has become irrelevant. DGG 02:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments indicate that you've never actually bothered to read Wikipedia Review. WR forum users are generally in favor of us strengthening our biographical requirements - as we're doing here. This is part of the evolution of Wikipedia - less tabloid, more encyclopedia. FCYTravis 03:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article is very peculiar in that we have both sides claiming WP:BIO is on their side and the other side is an extremist view point. Ignoring that both sides both think one policy with an opposite meaning is on both sides the arguments apart from that made me lean towards keep. A lot of the delete comments, most being ill-informed calls for speedy deletion, seem to be arguments that are thinly veiled positions on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and arguing from a moral standpoint. The keep side has been arguing that her pole vaulting career is the driving force behind their keep but I don't believe that either, although in my opinion the fact this was found would make her at least notable in sportbios. I am however of the opinion the internet meme, that is the real drvging force behind both this articles inclusion and deletion, should not be as contentious as people consider. There are many precendents for articles in this situation including The Bus Uncle (featured article), Star Wars kid and The Saugeen Stripper. The recent rush for deletion of articles on this type seems to be that people have taken WP:BLP to be the be all and end all of all articles and the fact is a lot of these arguments simply don't follow BLP and scream BLP as a deletion reason rather than its actual reason for existing, to maintain biographical articles neutrally and sourced. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether this article is kept or not, it will not mention the so-called Internet meme. That has already been determined. The only thing this AfD is considering is whether or not Ms. Stokke's athletic accomplishments are suitable for encyclopedic coverage or not. FCYTravis 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Why not? How is this any different from mentioning it in the entry on Ron Paul?
    • I know that from the DRV closing but I still perceive it as a double standard. The delete proponents argue under WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY (essay), WP:IDONTLIKEIT (essay) and WP:RPA (essay) while the keep argue from WP:V (policy), WP:NPOV (policy) and WP:NOT censored (policy). With the precents it just seems that wikipedia has gone from the free encyclopedia with a basis in policy to trying to find the moral high ground in regards to articles. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Bollocks. The delete argument is from Biographies of living persons, which is one of the strongest policies we've got. Moreover Verifiability and Neutral point of view (ever met someone who converses in English, by the way?) can never be an argument to keep an otherwise problematic article, and "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn't mean that we let any old crap into Wikipedia. Your deployment of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it and Remove personal attacks is masterly, but only if viewed as black propaganda, and hardly illuminating. --Tony Sidaway
        • The delete argument is from Biographies of living persons, which is one of the strongest policies we've got. I know you pride yourself in spelling things out rather than using abbreviations but could you quote the part of that policy which you think most clearly applies here and determines the course of action we should take? Haukur 10:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Didn't Tony say elswehere that he has not read WP:BLP and does not intend to? Edison 18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I specifically left out BLP because both sides are claiming BLP supports their side and that the other side is wrongfully interpretting BLP. As both sides have a valid claim I focussed on the other arguments in the debate as giving BLP to either side in my eyes would've been a biased position. Your random attacks and uncivil additions for seemingly no reason than to bite at me don't exactly give me great faith in your position either (ever met someone who converses in English, by the way?). –– Lid^(Talk) 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You'll have to make a better case than "it's already been determined," because it certainly hasn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong KeepWhy would her evaluation be single dimensional? There are numerous other factors to consider, including her appearance in various newspapers, etc.
• Delete. A high school athlete in a minor sport is not something we have to cover. An unfortunate fit of internet ogling is something we ought not cover. So what else is there to talk about? Chick Bowen 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Many published works on the topic. WP:IDONTLIKEIT notwithstanding, "the world" decides if something is notable, not Wikipedia editors. --Oakshade 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. She won a state championship and broke several records, seems like straightforward notability to me. The internet phenomenon hardly need enter into it. Bryan Derksen 05:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable individual, meets WP:BIO and no BLP violations. 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious delete, nothing here to write a biography. Not really notable as an athlete yet (still too young), and the internet phenomenon thing just gives us a one-line story that isn't about her. Kusma (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Violates core official policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because Wikipedia is not a blog, a soapbox, a publisher of original research, or an indiscriminate collection of random information! Also, I will note for the record that a significant number of editors voting for "Keep" appear to be immature juveniles with a weak understanding of proper English spelling and grammar (starting with the rule that the word "Internet" is traditionally capitalized). I sincerely wonder about their ability to understand Wikipedia core policies and principles which have been reaffirmed hundreds of times by ArbCom, the Foundation, Jimbo Wales, and the majority of Wikipedia admins. --Coolcaesar 06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Where does this article violate WP:OR? –– Lid^(Talk) 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Alison is a beautiful girl, and she should be flattered about that; unfortunately, that does not an article make, and the depravity of a few does not cut it either. I wish her the best of luck in her career, but there's no need to have an article on her. Delete, without prejudice to recreation if/when her athletic career has a longer list of accomplishments. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Athletes are notable if they are in a professional league, won an "open" (which means not age-restricted) nationwide championship or something similar. Being a high school athlete, even an excellent high school athlete, does not make the mark. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since we would not even have an article in the first place if it were not for the drooling idiots who obsess over her picture. And Xoloz, this was a stupid idea - the DRV showed a clear weight of arguments balance to keep deleted. We can afford to wait until she has acieved actual notability outside of Teh Internets, and meantime we can maybe discuss the Washington Post article a little at an article on internet privacy. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have to disagree with you there, Guy. DRV showed that the community felt that the speedy deletion was inappropriate, hence the correct thing to do was restore and relist on AFD. Js farrar 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:N based on multiple reliable sources covering her in nontrivial fashion. From a practical standpoint, she's probably better known at this point than 95% of our bio articles. I'm not saying OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I'm saying she clearly meets our criteria. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete until she establishes her reputation as an athlete beyond all doubt, and until those who wish to decorate her article with the banner headline "Teen Tests Internet's Lewd Track Record" (yes, that is the headline on the story we are being told "establishes her notibility") start typing with both hands and smell the coffee. —Phil | Talk 08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you have a problem with Washington Post headlines take it up with them. Note that I made the text big so everyone can see it. --JJay 21:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The brouhaha establishing her notability is distasteful, but it exists, is verifiable, and can be sourced. She also participated in an interview about the issue, which kind of invalidates the points of people saying she isn't looking for notability on the subject. She is very clearly notable, and thus deserves an article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is still not policy. --Ashenai 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is established by multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, so meets WP:BIO. The article is sourced, neutral and verifiable, so not in violation of WP:BLP. Walton^{alternate account} 09:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since when did WP:BLP apply to sourced statements? Jon513 11:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough for wikipedia Avi 12:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because the article subject meets the notability requirements. One of the many things that Wikipedia does well is to make internet phenomena understandable to the general reader. Will people remember her in a century? No, but who's heard of 60% of the people in the latest public-domain Encyclopedia Britannica? The people who Rebecca call "masturbating neanderthal bloggers" have given this woman a Washington Post article and made her intensely, if (probably) fleetingly, notable. She's an adult, she's given interviews on the subject of her internet-meme notability--she meets the libel standard of a public figure, not a private one. Darkspots 13:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Does somebody have a bucket handy? --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Just use paper towels like everyone else. And you really don't need to tell us about it. :) --Ashenai 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break 2

• Delete. There are two possible claims for the lovely Miss Stokke to have an article:

  1) She is a notable athelete. - Answer - not yet, she's not. She does not pass the requirements for atheletes set out in WP:BIO.

  2) She is notable because she is flavour of the month for the blog pervert brigade, and that made the Washington Post. - Answer - I read a news story (on the BBC!) yesterday about a man in Sudan who married a goat. Does that mean the goat should have its own article? It was after all, the subject of the article. No, it doesn't. Irrespective of BLP issues, it's not enough for an article.

In conjunction with the BLP issues, this looks like an Unholy Alliance of inclusionists and onanists trying to keep an article on Allison Stokke. there are no good reasons to keep the article. There are many to delete it; basic human dignity, common sense, our rules on the biographies of living people, and because Doc G said so. Neil ╦ 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Insulting editors is not acceptable. Kindly refrain from such attacks. Tyrenius 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• What? Neil ╦<;;/span> 15:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• You mean this goat? –– Lid^(Talk) 14:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh my God. Well, there's the next AFD I'll open. Neil ╦ 15:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You say there are "no good reasons to keep the article"; perhaps you could then comment on at least a couple of the many reasons that were given? --Ashenai 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I did - her athelete career is yet not sufficient per WP:BIO (she's not even a record holder any more, see above) the "being a subject of fifteen year old lust" is absolutely out per WP:BLP. Neil ╦ 15:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete with no objection to re-creation when she becomes notable for her athletic achievement. At the moment, she isn't notable for this, so IMHO including her on the basis of being an "internet phenomonon" violates WP:BLP thus; "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry ... if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." without even going near Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and restore material which is national news. It's not a BLP issue: that refers to material which is not properly sourced. This is just censorship and a very bad precedent. We operate from NPOV. Tyrenius 14:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  It's probably international news. I read a half-page report in Fréttablaðið, which even had a photograph. (That still doesn't mean we should necessarily keep the article.) Haukur 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Not only are her athletic achievements noteworthy (broke several national records, according to the article, thereby qualifying under WP:BIO: Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports.), but she's an example of the way the 'Net is affecting privacy.
  *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Err, you did notice that this is all high school stuff, right? That's hardly what I'd call "the highest level in amateur sports". Friday (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And you did notice that her records have since been broken, anyway? (see earlier in this AFD) Neil ╦ 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless of her records, this meets WP:BIO through multiple non-trivial coverage of her athletic career. Prolog 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable (thought talented) athlete; the internet meme is not encyclopedic; nothing in this case overcomes her reasonable desire for privacy, and our obligation to treat people decently. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Questioning the notability of high school record holders by nominator is unreasonable age discrimination. `'юзырь:mikka 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  She is no longer a record holder. See above. Neil ╦ 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  What an excellent argument. I can't wait to start the AfD on Hank Aaron when Barry Bonds surpasses his home run record. Tarc 13:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Preposterous analogy - Aaron is notable for much, much more than being the MLB HR record-holder. Js farrar 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  It was supposed to be preposterous, to point out that just because someone tops a record-holder doesnt' automatically make the old record-holder less notable. Tarc 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete How the hell is this still up fro debate? Cary Bass ^demandez 15:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Because there's no reason to delete her. She's notable for at least two things, each of which have several reliable, verifiable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs)

  • Because she's noteworthy. This really shouldn't be up for debate because it unquestionably meets our standards, so I actually kind of agree with you, but for different reasons. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete -- The lady clearly doesn't want the attention, and we shouldn't be feeding the animals. Bring her up again after she's won an Olympic event or set a world's record and to hell with newspaper coverages--which are feeding the same salacious interests as bloggers these fallen days. Until then, we ought to respect people's wishes that they don't want coverage as a Right Thing to do. Or our we to stoop to the level of Paparazzi? Perhaps we should have a tag "Wikipedia respects the privacy rights of this individual and will not expand this article" or the like. Keep the page to bare minimal facts, and be respectful overall. I don't see engaging in tabloid journalism as the mission of this project. It's frankly, demeaning. // FrankB 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  So, if we keep the page to the verifiable facts, that's fine with you? that doesn't sound like a delete vote, that sounds more like a cleanup vote. Oh, and a tag saying "we will not expand this article" is like claiming nothing more can be learned about something. Lets say Michael Jordan in high school got involved on the Internet and some female heartthrobs decide to make a webpage dedicated to him, he decided to throw off the publicity and say he wanted to be left alone. How would you like to have put that tag on him saying "nothing more will ever happen to this guy. We'll never change this article." It's silly, and it's the Wrong Thing. McKay 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets Wikipedia:Notability due to having multiple independent reliable sources covering her achievements as an athlete, and apparently these achievements are non-trivial. The fact that her records are broken isn't as important as the fact that she once set them; most of Babe Ruth's and Ty Cobb's records are also broken. Unfortunately it looks like this article will need to live either on people's revert lists or merely semi-protected for a while, to avoid vandalism, but that's not a big deal, we have lots of articles like that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, non-public people that are borderline notable should not have to put up with articles that contain vandalism and offensive material. When a person has stated that they do not desire publicity it is wrong for us to harm them by allowing it to happen. We need to be responsible and do the right thing. If she later is a truly notable person then we can write a well balanced comprehensive article about her. FloNight 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There's significant debate as to how "non-public" she is, and there's no such thing as "borderline notable" - you're either notable or you're not, and she clearly is.

(Can't be bothered to track down the page history to see who didn't sign this.) Don't be silly: You're using a false dichotomy and the fallacy of extremes. That's like saying "It's either black or white, and there's no gray" — clearly false. Of course there are shades of notability. There's extremely notable (say, GWB), utterly non-notable (my cat), and, somewhere inbetween, at the "borderline notable" level, is this girl. --Cyde Weys 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I've gone back and forth on this but ended up with Keep. High school athletes wouldn't normally meet the bar but CBS calls her "one of the best prep athletes in the nation" and the point is that she does want to be recognized for her athletic accomplishments and not her unwanted Internet fame. Her call for respect for her privacy is also notable -- however -- it should only be a one-line mention in her article and a refer to Harassment by computer or Internet privacy or other appropriate article. WP:BLP requires us to exercise particular care. What we should do is respect her wishes and the above would seem to be in keeping with her statements that I've seen. Canuckle 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Still Keep (I voted above, I've got more input) We have very clear rules as to whether or not something should be kept, WP:Notability. The primary Notability criterion is that the subject of the article must be the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. Either her athletic career or the Internet meme is enough to satisfy this. The meme *is* notable. It must be mentioned. WP:BLP doesn't apply because the information can be sourced very well. BLP talks about removing content in that isn't WP:Attributable. All of the meme stuff is attributable, reliable, and verifiable. Maybe I'm not understanding something, but it appears to me that anyone voting keep delete doesn't understand the policies involved. McKay 16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Read it again. Especially the "nutshell". And read WP:NOT, the bit about newspapers. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:NOT mentions newspaper sources and says 2 basic things "we aren't a primary news source" so, if we source other thigns, we're fine. It also says "be sure to follow notablity guidelines" which we're doing. She satisfies the primary notability criterion for either her academic achievements, or the Internet meme. McKay 16:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Encyclopediaize. She is an attractive, talented high-school athlete made "notable" (read: some fake self-made level of famousness that we can pick and choose to establish or decline) by a bunch of bloggers oogling her. Does that warrant an article? No. BLP concerns are a secondary factor. This is an encyclopedia, not a Who's Who of high school athletes or a blog to tout some "hot new thing". Let her alone and delete this article. How about some common decency, folks? --Ali'i 16:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Hmm, you say we're not a who's who, and not a blog to tout some hot new thing, yet we're an encyclopedia. Could you please explain your criteria for encyclopedic inclusion? Wikipedia already has one, WP:N which she easily passes via the primary notability criterion. Are you trying to propose a new criteria for inclusion? McKay 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Clearly you did not read my entire comment. Please read in full before commenting again. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I have not seen anything which makes me believe she is sufficiently notable outside of the meme thing. High School atheletes break records for their age groups all the time. How many of them get biographies written about them? All of the references cited are to local (i.e. SoCal) media. If we keep this article, I don't see it ever being anything more than a stub protected against vandalism and/or material which fails wp:blp. At least until such time when and if she does something truly noteworthy such as sets an olympic or world record, at which point there will be a perfectly good reason to write a real article about her. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly meets WP:BIO. Quadzilla99 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps not so "clearly". Could you please explain? WP:BIO states for athletes: "Athletes: Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis or Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Which of these does she exactly satisfy? Or are you actually claiming notability for her recent unwanted harassment? Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I was referring to this: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" the front page of the Washington Post qualifies. Rather than wasting our time debating whether we like what the sources say every time this comes up, I think as long as they mention the person we should keep the article. This makes it more black & white and straightforward. Her national records would make her qualify as an athlete as well. So she makes it on both counts, even though the two are really unrelated though. Quadzilla99 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per McKay, especially his "Still keep" reasoning. Maxamegalon2000 18:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep national record and coverage in media makes her notable.  Grue  19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep even german media became aware: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,486714,00.html --Adornix 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 19:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't read German, but it didn't take much to guess that an article titled Sexsymbol wider Willen wasn't going to be about pole vaulting, and the fish confirmed that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    He's not trying to say that she's an international sports star, he's trying to say that she's an internation sex-symbol. Removing her from wikipedia because she's multi-talented is just silly. McKay 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Neil and Rebecca put it particularly well. Not notable outside of BLP-violating memes. The first deletion and DRV were enough, this whole AfD is just banner waving for all sorts. --InkSplotch 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  So sorry, what's in violation with BLP? Also, it's been shown that she *is* notable outside of the internet Meme. Rebecca had an arbitrary criteria, when WP:N is a more concrete criteria, which she passes. Neil also doesn't appear to understand wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, WP:N. McKay 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Neil understands WP:N, thank you. Neil also understands WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a news string dedicated to ensuring there is an article for every poor girl who gets leched over by a bunch of grubby wankers and WP:what's more many of us are capable of showing some human decency once in a while, as well as WP:Common sense instead of robotically assessing a situation based on some pretty arbitrary and often ignored inclusion criteria and articles about the media furore and not about Allison Stokke. Do you? Neil ╦ 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Actually it has NOT been shown that. The policy states (as I've said before), "Athletes: Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis or Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Which of these does she exactly satisfy? Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:Notability contains wikipedia's primary notablity criterion: "topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." You're referring to WP:BIO which states: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards" one of them is "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." so it passes WP:BIO too. (that's what the primary notability criterion is for, it applies to all subjects). McKay 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Information which is presented in an NPOV fashion, while citing reliable sources and avoiding original research, cannot violate WP:BLP, so the "not notable except for BLP violation" argument holds no water. Ubernostrum 20:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per FloNight. (This page is now so long that I'm supplying a diff.) ElinorD (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  She does meet notability issues, and the things about her are all attributable, so that content meets WP:BLP. Do you have anything else to add? McKay 20:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. This article is NOT here because of her track accomplishments. A bunch of internet dorks posted her picture all over the place and drooled over it. That infamy got the article listed here. There are thousands of good high school athletes that aren't listed on Wikipedia, and why should they be? Forteblast 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We keep the big Internet phenomenon like Star Wars Kid. JeffBurdges 21:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a "big internet phenomenon" it's despicable harassment of a living individual. "The wave of attention has steamrolled Stokke and her family in Newport Beach, Calif. She is recognized -- and stared at -- in coffee shops. She locks her doors and tries not to leave the house alone. Her father, Allan Stokke, comes home from his job as a lawyer and searches the Internet. He reads message boards and tries to pick out potential stalkers." Want to be a part of that? Keep it up. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Or, y'know, we could write an article that presents her as a human being worthy of respect instead of a piece of meat. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • In fact this delete vote should probably be postponed simply because we don't know how it'll turn out. If people keep pushing it, then she'll eventually have an article no matter what. If people forget, this article will come back up for deleteion and everyone will kill it. But for now AfD should probably ignore it. Anyway Star Wars Kid was much worse, feel bad for him. This girl created her fame partially by having a story about it in the Washington Post. She knows what she's getting into by talking to them. JeffBurdges 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete athletes of her level of accomplishment do not rutinely have articles (and, IMO, should not). We would not be having this debate were it not for the non-notable and salacious internet meme. Not that being salacious is an independent reason for deletion but per BLP we must show care and exercise discretion in incuding such content in articles like this one. Eluchil404 21:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The "not-notable" internet meme has had international press and was on the front page of the Washington Post. Just so you're aware, I don't need to rehash the BLP thing when it's been adequately debunked above numerous times. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I am well aware of the level of coverage the meme has recieved. I believe that Wikipedia should generally not cover memes because they are ephemeral, but this is clearly an area where we disagree. Eluchil404 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia shouldn't cover memes which are ephemeral for a simple reason- they don't have reliable sources written about them. Hence we don't have an article on the GNAA or The Game. In this case, we have multiple reliable sources (indeed it doesn't get much better than the Washington Post) about the meme in question. JoshuaZ 22:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Since when was the Washington Post "multiple sources"? Delete; she's simply not notable for her athletic achievements (per WP:BIO), and the internet meme thing fails WP:BLP. Js farrar 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The Washington Post is not multiple sources, but the Washington Post, LA Times, CBS News, Chicago Tribune, Orange County Register, Sydney Morning Herald, NPR add up to multiple sources, in my opinion. Links to the articles provided on request, although a Google News search should turn them up pretty easily. JavaTenor 14:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Multiple, but not independent sources. They are all reporting on the same news event. That's not in line with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 17:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, though attractive, athlete. AniMate 23:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm a believer that Wikipedia should keep the Daniel Brandt article but this one. Brandt created popular websites that brought attention to himself. (Sorry, Mr. Brandt) But for this person? Nah... Yes, she has been covered by notable publications but it isn't for her athletic achievements it's becauase one picture that made a lot of "fan" sites. It's more of the Internet stalking aspect those stories cover. Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. There's another site for that. Will she be "notable" like in 5-years now? For what besides an attractive picture. --Souphanousinphone 00:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, more non-trivial sources in the mainstream media than I can shake a stick at. --Delirium 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I looked at WP:BIO for ten seconds and immediately noticed these: The person has received significant recognized awards or honors, The person has demonstrable wide name recognition. She has definitely done both, in athletics and as an Internet meme.MoraSique 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: If Stokke hadn't been all over the Internet, she wouldn't have the article. Everyone should stop pretending that this isn't so. If she hadn't been an Internet phenom, she likely would have been speedied or proded. To have this article and not mention the real reason for her notability is empty self-deception. If Wikipedia doesn't need to mention her unsought publicity, then it doesn't need to mention her at all. Fishal 03:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - the records and the meme combine to make here important. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 04:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm willing to be benevolently dictated to that internet memes based on physical appearance beyond the subject's control cannot be used for notability discussions. However, I see four or so pre-meme mainstream media articles used as references that have Stokke's name in the title, which appears to meet BIO. In my opinion, the strength of the primarily criterion for notability (multiple independent sources) is greater than the lack under specifically "athlete" criteria. As for the "delete because the article was created because of the meme" argument, there are a couple murdered professors at Virginia Tech who received articles after the recent shootings, were promptly AFDed, and met WP:PROF with flying colors; just because someone comes to the attention of Wikipedia for a non-notable reason doesn't mean that there isn't something else that establishes notability. Given the concerns around this article and in line with the presumption in favor of privacy, I would have zero problem with full protection in its current form, with no mention of the meme, with a reduction to semi-protection in six months to see if the leering masses have moved on. - BanyanTree 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A famous athlete, lots of articles about her. I saw a series of articles in many, many, many internet news service sites. I saw one in the fabulous and informative FoxNews service. I even saw an article about it in AOL that was criticising Wikipedia for saying that Allison is not notable, even though she was on the pages of the fucking Washington Post. -Lapinmies 07:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable for sports 66.91.215.65 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  User's first edit. Neil ╦ 09:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The internet phenomenon surrounding her should be enough, but that aside, she's a notable athlete who's broken several national records.--Pushsense 08:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete − She should definitely have the right to stay anonymous. I guess that law even forbids the publishment of private persons' informations! --Claas Augner 11:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  User's first edit outside his userpage. Haukur 11:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No information about her is in the article that has not already been published, as you can see from the footnotes. --Ashenai 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - User Septegram hit the nail right on the head. tdpatriots12 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - First of all, I'd like to address some straw man arguments above. The "meme" story has become international news, but not because the editorial staff of The Washington Post are a bunch of "masturbating neanderthals", or because NPR is a bastion of "tabloid journalism", or because the Chicago Tribune wants to drool over her pictures. It has become international news because it speaks to the concerns many have over the shifting nature of private citizenship in an era in which anyone with a blog can instantly disseminate information and photographs to millions of people, or in which Google can immortalize random people sunbathing or walking into pornographic bookstores. However, it's obvious per WP:BLP that we can't (and shouldn't) have a true biography on any of these people. Thus: Merge the "meme" information to an article on "unwilling internet phenomena", or "internet privacy concerns", or something similar. That might ultimately be a good destination for people like Star Wars Kid or even, dare I say it, Little Fatty. JavaTenor 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is international news. One of the first articles to report on the meme was The Times[22]--Pushsense 17:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent suggestion, and expresses what I feel about this a lot better than my keep vote, above. I think that Wikipedia can and should have an article about this phenomenon that lists and explains these individual incidents. Readers who want to know about this article's subject can read about her story in a larger framework. Pretending like this didn't happen by erasing all mention of her from WP--with an eye to protecting the privacy of someone who has lost that privacy on the internet--feels like a pointless attempt to turn back the clock. Darkspots 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Yes I think this is a reasonable middle-ground position. I've made this suggestion on the talk page: the meme only became notable due to her media relations campaign. The following sentence should pass review (I think) as accurate, appropriate and respectful: "In May 2007, Stokke conducted a brief but effective media relations campaign with national media to assert her right to privacy and to ask the public to focus on her athletic accomplishments." Canuckle 19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete without whatever was deleted on BLP grounds, she's not notable, being a good athlete at the high school level does not make one notable. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Her notability does not only come from her athletic achievements ... the part about the internet meme was not "deleted on BLP grounds" but rather repeatedly removed without consensus and the page protected. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this article does not violate WP:BIO and is about the "shifting nature of private citizenship in an era in which anyone with a blog can instantly disseminate information and photographs to millions of people" as javatenor said. Hypnosadist 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per FloNight. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac of high school atheletes. Hopefully she will have a full and rewarding athletic career. In the meantime, the other reason for her notability requires deletion. BLP is about more than just protecting ourselves from liability. This person's notability is due largely to the fact that she became the unwanted object of widespread purient interest. Under the spirit of BLP as well as the letter ("Such material requires a degree of sensitivity,", "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominence comes a measure of responsibility", "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm"," and "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.") that material does not belong in the article. (Wikipedia is not a newspaper also applies, as does Neutral Point of View:Undue Weight, as it pertains to people notable for a single event.) Thatcher131 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete •Jim62sch• 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone saying she is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I'm sorry, but minor high school athletic achievements don't really achieve notability, even if you can find some small town newspapers that talk about it. As for everything else regarding her possible notability — e.g. that she's attractive (OMG) — I think some common sense and a good application of WP:DIGNITY do wonders here. --Cyde Weys 21:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What is notable is not that shes a good looking lass but the speed and size of the meme generated by her looks. This is clearly notable and worldwide, this fact can be recorded in a way that in no way harms her, lets try to find that wording then we are all happy.Hypnosadist 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now, per JavaTenor, the talk page of the article, and many other places. It's a notable instance of internet fame that's made all sorts of news and become a serious buzz. Six months down the line we'll have more perspective to know whether this ought to be an independent article or merged into a list as just another item, but for now it's a substantial piece of sourced information that'll inform our readers neutrally about something a lot of people want to know about. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Trout Whack for those who are mistaking this for a Vote (who are at least mercifully short,) and for those simply rehashing, rehashing, and rehashing things. Has there been an original point or conclusion in this whole section? Are there any points here beyond: She's an athelete with records [no she's not], she's memorable for the meme [no she's not], BLP applies [no it doesn't], news articles automatically make one notable [no they don't], it's all tabloid-style coverage [no it isn't.] Did I miss anything beyond the goat argument? LaughingVulcan 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Teen girl and high-school athlete, leered at by some bottom-feeders on blogs and forums. Disgusting and grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, did you even read the entry above yours about rehashing? I guess at least the suggestion that if something is disgusting it is inappropriate for Wikipedia represents a new level of...something. Lampman ^{Talk to me!}

• Delete, per all the other times I've voted on this article. Again, if there are users here who are interested in a project to scrape up "biographies" of every person who has made it into the news or been the victim of an internet meme, please do it somewhere other than the encyclopedia. Jkelly 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, qualifies for inclusion based on sports and internet fame. --JJay 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The issue isn't whether the subject is notable for one particular thing (athletics or the meme) -- though I'll note that this source identifies her as "one of the nation's best prep athletes". Is she notable overall? She has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works (among them the Washington Post and at least two television interviews). The article is sourced and neutral, although I find it strange that the part about the meme, which is a significant event in her life, has been repeatedly removed. I think there comes a point where concern about BLPs crosses over into blatant censorship ... with this article, I think that point has been crossed. Wikipedia should not be censored. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete For the love of God, get rid of this article. She is de facto not notable (and yes, I know her personally, so there!, and so does another Wikipedian!). She is nn-bio CSD A7, all that.... so delete. One more thing, her only claim to notability is really in Merseyside and East Riding of Yorkshire, but that's not Wikipedia's standard of notability. --Kasha walls33 19:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  What makes you think she is "de facto" not notable. I was talking with a friend of mine about my blocking yesterday over this issue. He doesn't really use Wikipedia, but I asked him if he knew who Allison Stokke was, and he said "Is she the track star with her photos on the Internet" (is it okay to say that or am I going to get blocked?), we don't live anywhere near Meyerside, or east riding of yorkshire (in fact I haven't even heard of those places), so I'd claim that she's de facto notable. She meets the criteria specified in WP:BIO via the primary notability criterion, and her notability is asserted satisfiing CSD A7. So it looks like your claim has no ground. McKay 20:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  Wow, now WP:MYNEIGHBOURHEARDOFHER is now a valid keep criterion? Why didn't you tell us this at the beginning and spare us all of the discussion which actually references policy? Corvus cornix 20:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:CIVIL WP:AGF I was merely using this as an example of my confusion as to what he meant by "de facto" ... McKay 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Considering this is your first edit at wikipedia[23], how would you know anything about "Wikipedia's standard of notability"? --JJay 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ... every heard of lurkers? Not everyone who is a newbie is a newbie to Wikipedia policy and culture.. --Iamunknown 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ...ever heard of sock puppets? --JJay 21:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ...evr heard of the harm in making unsupported accusations! Got any proof that this editor is a WP:SOCK.Hypnosadist 23:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ...socks usually come in pairs. See below. JJay 14:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Given that Allison Stokke is American rather than English, I do believe you are thinking of someone else. — VulcanOfWalden 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Please.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per almost everything said above (pointless to repeat). Garion96 (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• What JavaTenor said, i.e. merge and mention in an article on internet privacy concerns or similar title. the wub "?!" 23:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but with changes. I believe the article should exist because she is a notable person, but the article doesn't discuss what makes her notable. It isn't her pole vaulting record. It's the internet phenomenon surrounding pictures of her. This needs to be described in the article in order to justify the article's inclusion in the encyclopedia. Capedia 00:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - LeBron James was a high school sensation, as was Candace Parker. Both had wiki articles long before they achieved anything after high school. Stokke's physical appearance only draws more attention to her, such as Amanda Beard; this is the first time I've heard of not including someone because she is "too famous", but not "famous enough". If this was the case, Paris Hilton should have been deleted long ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.188.232.227 (talk • contribs).
• Delete per Newyorkbrad. --Aude (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but Rename to something like "Allison Stokke controversy". This doesn't need to be a biographical article, as the notable thing here is not the person herself but what the Internet just did to her. This controversy was well covered by verifiable, reliable journalism sources, so there's no case for deletion. However, there's also no reason for this to remain a biography article. 62.31.67.29 09:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's quite questionable whether this athlete is notable. She apparently has some high school records now, but will she later? Probably not, records are routinely broken. Would we put the pole vaulter with the 12th best height in California high school history on wikipedia just because they held the record in 1974? No, we wouldn't even think about it. If this girl goes on to be a successful athlete beyond high school, obviously she will have an article. There's no rush to create one now, and this article never, ever would have been created were it not for the unfortunate internet drama. To have an article that only address her athletic achievements and not the internet meme would be ridiculous and a drama magnet to the nth degree, and we absolutely should not have an article that discusses the internet meme for already decided BLP reasons. She's a talented athlete, but it is simply not necessary to have an article about her since her notability is so borderline. Because of the BLP issues and all the drama having an entry on this girl would create (actually already has created) it is not desirable to have an article about her right now. Let's exercise a little editorial and moral judgment here and get rid of this thing. When she competes in the Olympics or something similar we'll put it back.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, unless you live in Liverpool or Kingston-upon-Hull (where she is notable, apart from California, where she isn't!). It's Scousecruft, or Hullcruft. Delete this, per WP:BLP, WP:BIO. --Theeastyorkshiredude1983xss 13:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This person is not notable, even with regard to the Internet meme. Only real claim of notability is presenting a show on 96.9 Viking FM in 2005 and 2006, and being an EMAP radio employee but whether you consider that notable is up to you. --Septicollocr44 13:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete CSD A7, only ever notable to people from Liverpool, Teesside or Humberside, this is just WP:FANCRUFT. One more thing - this Californian is OFTEN seen in those three places, but that doesnt mean shes notable. So delete this fancruft. --Kaillaws322 13:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable at all. The internet meme thing doesn't wash, and doesn't mean she meets WP:BIO. However, Amanda and Sam Marchant from Big Brother would meet WP:BIO, not that you'd realize. --TEDPITMAN 13:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as an employee of 96.6 TFM, I can confirm Ms. Stokke worked for us last year, doing some background production work for Patrick's evening show... but she just doesn't want publicity, so let's not give her any then. She wouldn't meet your WP:BIO or WP:BLP standards anyway. --Gelssam30032 13:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, just because it's on the Net doesnt make her notable. And for gods sake, just get rid of this non-notable individual from here. --Kemsell43 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Only marginal notability, and that's just for her work on British radio last year. Doesn't meet WP:BIO anyway. --Penysago333 13:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete An American who does part-time work on British radio isn't notable: for the record, she's got a house in Leeds, if that's of any relevance. But she's not notable enough for here. --Kaimarbuth1336 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the epitomy of CSD A7, "nn-bio" --Wrenfordhouse9000 14:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, Wikipedia is not a directory of British radio employees. --Quevers00032 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep You hear the name, you want to know who she is, Wikipedia is the first place you'd look. Beve 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia is not meant to be censored. It was bad enough that the Internet phenomena page got wiped out, making Wikipedia the last place to look for information on Internet culture. I was personally upset at that action, but I accepted it because I agree there is a need for reasonable inclusion criteria. Demanding reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability of memes is completely acceptable to me.
          So, what now concerns me is that when those criteria are met, with internet memes making front page news in respected US national newspapers, suddenly those inclusion criteria give way to the arbitrary whims of moral crusaders. Wikipedia reflects the world. We have articles for murder and rape. We have articles for the Star Wars Kid, Gary Brolsma, Rufus Hannah; people who didn't want to be famous but became famous anyway, famous for being filmed in humiliating situations. They're famous because people love to watch other people suffer. These people exist in infamy and it's offensive to me to pretend they don't, to bowdlerize Wikipedia and to keep people from discovering the cruel world we live in. I ask these people: please start a "family friendly" fork of Wikipedia if that's what you want, but don't impose your moral standards on Wikipedia itself. 62.31.67.29 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (from Talk page. --Ali'i 15:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete With no prejudice to recreation if she becomes a notable athlete outside of highschool competitions. The media coverage was both substantial and trivial, being the subject of transitory internet fandom does not make one a public figure. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm ... coverage can't be both substantial and trivial. Could you please clarify? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe he means that is was numerous but that for all the different numbers of mentions, they were all trivial. Correct me if I erred. --Ali'i 17:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Nail, head. (I suppose that "numerous" or "voluminous" or "way overboard" are all better choices than "substantial".) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if we included information on every HS athlete record holder it would be crazy. If she had international honour and such I think she would cross the bench mark for notability. (world junior medals etc.) David D. (Talk) 19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: here is an example of a currently notable HS athlete, Jordan Hasay David D. (Talk) 19:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't think we'll care about this in two years or ten (unless she does something notable in that time). This isn't a newspaper or blog. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Before dismissing her for record in ONLY one state, note that California, with a 2006 population of 36.5 million, would rank as the 37th country in the world if it were a country, ahead of Canada or Australia, and in all 231 countries in the CIA world factbook [24] so a California record compares to a national record in much of the world. Please don't wikilawyer with quotes from guidelines which are there more as a substitute for multiple reliable sources about an individual than to exclude article based on sources which satisfy WP:N and WP:A. Edison 19:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It would rank as the world's 37th largest country, but it's a state, not a country. Your counterfactual is irrelevant for our purposes. New York City has a larger population than Nicaragua and well over a hundred other countries, but would you recommend having an article on every NYC high school athlete who broke records for the city in every sporting event imaginable? How about athletes in Tokyo? Or Mexico City? I don't think so. The rationale in your comment does not make Ms. Stokke's achievements more notable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, local is local, whether that local is California or Nicaragua. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The attention makes the subject notable. She now has cultural importance, and this is a valid enough reason to document her here. Tfine80 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. She's a high-school athlete. And...? An absolute no-brainer: if and when she has some post-collegiate accomplishments, then she probably rates a biographical article -- you know, an actual biography -- but not until then. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 9 June 2007 (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.