Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Burns

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 17:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Burns

Essentially a memorial page, albeit one with some press attention. This is admittedly a close call, and the subject of some discussion at Recent Deaths, so consensus might as well be sought here. I'm indifferent, so I will abstainXoloz 16:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. If there are five deaths in 22 years directly attributable to cheerleading, and this is one of them, I'm of the opinion that makes it notable. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I disagree that it is a memorial page: she is notable for how she died, and the article focuses on cheerleading, which led to her death. It doesn't tell us, for example, that she liked fluffy kittens and wanted to grow up to be a ballerina. Ground Zero 17:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• It is very sad; however, I have to say delete, I'm afraid. If dying while cheerleading is notable, it should have its own page. Many, many wonderful people have died in unusual ways, performing sports, hobbies, etc. Its a shame, but they can't all get a mention.Grayum 17:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sad but nn. Martg76 17:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. KeithD (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment naturally I'll go with the consensus, but I would comment that it would be surprising if an article about a single incident comprising 20% of the deaths in any other activity were classed as non-notable Tonywalton  | Talk 17:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sad, but not-notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In reply to Tonywalton, all that proves is that the rate of death from cheerleading is fairly low, and/or that the number of people who participate in it is also fairly low. Most individual deaths are not notable, unless the person who died is notable before their death, with few exceptions. Meelar (talk) 18:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Put Elsewhere. I tend to agree with Tonywalton on this. Cheerleading is a dangerous sport with the constant possibly for severe injury or death. Instead of giving it an entire page, could it be added to the cheerleading page already in existance? And then, other cases can be added as they occur, also. I think it's important to show that it's not just a bunch of girls shaking pom-poms for boys, but a sport where people can get hurt or die. Why not include it with cheerleading? K of slinky 20:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough to make CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS and all 3 network broadcasts. Also, as per Tonywalton, this represents a significant event within the sport. Future deaths in Cheerleading are sure to refer back to this event.

--Nicodemus75 20:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Facts are important, not fame. Just because I haven't heard of a story doesn't mean I should automatically dismiss it as not being noteworthy. It's an encyclopedia, not a copy of US Weekly. Let's get as much factual information together as possible...just because it's not important to you doesn't mean it's not important to someone else. Vanity and advertising should be deleted everytime, but not factual news like this. BigGuy219 20:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, and made national news headlines, which creates notability. Wikipedia is not paper. -Satori 20:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, freak cheerleading accidents are rare and notable.Gateman1997 20:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep due to widespread media coverage surrounding this individual. Hall Monitor 22:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Gateman1997.
• Keep this, per Gateman. Trollderella 00:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep; the only reason this caused a media flap is because of the somewhat amusing nature of the otherwise unfortunate story. That doesn't really make someone particularly notable, but the sheer amount of media attention here would seem to make up some of the difference. -Splash 00:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Her name is already mentioned in the main cheerleading article. The contents of her article should just fully be displayed in the main article. Although her death may have been tragic, I don't think she is notable enough to warrant her own article. (Notorious4life 02:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. Sad but her name will barely be remembered in 6 months except by her family and friends. This belongs in Wikinews--Porturology 03:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge and redirect to some cheerleading article. No meed for a separate article on this girl. Uppland 05:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the kind of story that's in the news for a week or two and then fades from public interest. NN. MCB 07:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:NOT--nixie 07:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now. The test is if her name is used to push (or see attempts to push) changes in cheerleading organizations, the schools, and/or the law. I suspect it might. If it drops from the headlines, and no effect is left, it can be deleted later. --rob 09:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As the original editor of the article I assert it is not a memorial page as has been suggested in the nomination for deletion. I am an Australian. I have never seen live cheerleading and would not participate in such an activity and would actively discourage my daughter from cheerleading. I wrote the article when I became aware of the death and issues of notability on the Talk:Deaths_in_2005#Ashley_Burns. Before coming across the reference to her on that page I had never heard of her. At that stage, just over a week over her death, a simple google search showed 464 hits. Today, three days later, the same search shows 609 hits. Her death, reports of the funeral, reports of the potential impact on cheerleading stunts has received national coverage being reported several times in the Washington Post, on CNN, in the Houston newspapers as well as local Massachussets papers. It is my assessment that the threshhold of notability has been reached and that although there are limits to the Google test other articles have been kept with fewer hits. I have referenced Ashely Burns's death in the Cheerleading article but I do not think it appropriate that the article be taken over by details of this incident. As a passing observation on process I find it strange that the nominator of the VfD chose to abstain. I also think as a matter of courtesy original editors of articles should be advised if an article into which they have obviously put more than a passing amount of effort were notified via their talk page of the deletion debate. Because of subsequent edits to the article the nomination to VfD did not show up on my talk page and I nearly missed the debate.--AYArktos 10:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I brought the matter to VfD having following the discussion on Recent Deaths (and wishing for the widest possible consensus), but I truly have no firm opinion, so I abstained, which is not uncommon. I do not follow the practice of notifying contributors of VfD's on their creations, at least not when ample and capable defenses are otherwise provided by dispassionate parties. Although I continue to abstain, I believe some would argue that the Google Test is less appropriate here, on the theory that this is a transient phenomenon, and not likely to be widely remembered after a short time has elapsed. My suggestion that is a this memorial page follows from my belief that nothing is memorable about young Burns except her tragic death. Any other details (about cheerleading hazards generally) would belong at cheerleading or, possibly, the odd-sounding cheerleading hazards. On the other hand, I acknowledge that press makes one notable. Hence, I am undecided, and abstain as above. Xoloz 17:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.  Grue  19:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. There are many people who've made a far bigger impact on humanity that don't have Wikipedia pages. This is really just a news bite. tooki 16:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it: Anything which points up what a stupid, pointless, exclusively American and, above all, dangerous "sport" cheerleading is must be kept as a warning to others. Sportsfan 00:52 22August 2005.
• Keep. Clean it a little bit 'nuff said. LILVOKA 18:12, 22 August 2005.
• I'd say Keep, but I'm from Massachusetts, so I might be a bit biased. Acetic Acid 05:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, there was media coverage, but of the flash-in-the-pan variety. Friday (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep please wikipedia is not paper and people could look for this here Yuckfoo 19:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now - as another has said, this may lead to law or policy change in which case she is notable. — PhilHibbs | talk 16:35, 24 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.