Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathie Jung

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Perhaps I'll merge it. dbenbenn | talk 14:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cathie Jung

"Cathie Jung (born 1937) [...] currently holds the Guiness World Record for the smallest waist on a living person." Does this article belong on Wikipedia? Although an initial search pulled up about 1000 hits, most of them are completely unrelated and pertain almost exclusively to x-rated material. After filtering out "xxx" and "sex" you get a more accurate picture of around 200. [1] GRider\^talk 01:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records. Zzyzx11 01:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I beg to differ. While Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records, nor is it likely the place for obscure records that belong in the same, Cathie Jung is notable enough, at least in North America, due to her unusual Victorian-like waist in modern times. "You ain't gonna be no eighteen and a half inches again!" --Deathphoenix 06:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand (not her waistline), just passes notability for me. Megan1967 06:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a book of records. RickK 06:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if there is nothing more to say than this. Otherwise, we should have every Guiness World Record holder in here, and I really do not think that is what Wikipedia is for. HowardB 07:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and relevent to modern day corset wearers. Seems like bad idea though. Kappa 08:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Rick and Howard. Radiant! 09:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of Records and this contains very little beyond what would be in there. Trilobite (Talk) 10:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There are thousands of recordholders named in current and past Guiness Books. They don't all deserve entries. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Her waist is notable; she isn't. I renew my appeal that some sort of precendent be put down for dealing with minor Guiness records. --InShaneee 21:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete But Agree that the data belongs somewhere on wikipedia, just not in its own article. Consider keeping as a redirect, perhaps -- but I have no strong feelings about that. Some sort of a policy on Guiness record type of information is needed here.

Note: The above vote was made by User:EggplantWizard on 05:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) --Andylkl 18:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• merge with corset.  ALKIVAR™ 21:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to corset. Agree that the content should be kept but does not necessarily warrant its own article. —RaD Man (talk) 21:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and stuff her name and the little bite of content that's in this into the corset article. It's not notable in an of itself, but corset folks might think it's really interesting. BenSamples 05:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to corset. / Uppland 17:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to corset. Notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, just not in her own article yet. --Andylkl 18:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. She was notable enough to make local tv some years back over here in Australia. -- Longhair 18:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to tightlacing or corset--nixie 23:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 04:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 23:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. World's smallest waist -- so what? Wile E. Heresiarch 03:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't Guiness. Carrp | Talk 06:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 06:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge' — Linnwood 07:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Although, as many have pointed out, this is not intended to be the Guiness Book, that publication is a copyrighted collection of facts (i.e., only the arrangement can be copyrighted, not the facts themselves, see Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)); facts that are notable and in the public domain should be available in a venue where they are readily usable by the people. Isn't that fundamental to this project? --BD2412 02:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Guiness Book, while it can be fascinating, is a collection of trivial, not notable, material in general (obviously there are exceptions). This would seem to lean more towards trivial than notable. Indrian 04:40, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although the fact of Cathie's Guiness-certified narrow waist fact may be notable, how is anyone going to find it? The Guiness Book of Records would have this person in a section about human physical limits, sub-section smallest, sub-sub-section waist, where people could easily find this fact. Short of Wikipedia having an article entitled 'Guiness World Record holder for the narrowest waist on a living person' - and we can't call the article Adult human being with narrowest waist because we don't know that for sure - how is an article on Cathie Jung going to be useful? -Ashley Pomeroy 22:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough. JamesBurns 09:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. She can get a brief mention in Tightlacing or somewhere, but does not need an article. The Guinness Book of World Records is not an encyclopedia (its purpose is to settle bar bets), and Guinness "record" holders are not automatically encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• merge into Corset. Notable enough for a mention, not notable enough for her own article imho. Thryduulf 22:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.