Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Brownell (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. The arguments for deletion are much stronger than those for keeping (including even excluding IAR and the incorrect reading of WP:ATHLETE). Fram (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Katie Brownell
AfDs for this article:
Article is a biography of child who received some press coverage for pitching a perfect game in Little League Baseball. This article represents a clear violation of WP:BLP1E. In first nomination (which was closed no consensus), the closing admin described the decision as "insane." I tried merging the article with 2005 in baseball, but my edit was reverted, leading me to request deletion again. BRMo (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —BRMo (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Kinstone Eagle improving the article enough to assert notability. SashaNein (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The closing nom's statment on the previous AFD was completely rude and inappropriate for a closing statement, attempting to have strong influence in a future AFD, giving the argument for deletion a unfair advantage before the first vote is even cast. SashaNein (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, I think the spirit of BLP:1E is to prevent articles on people known primarily for scandals. Zagalejo^^^ 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- BLP1E says, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted...a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." It is not applicable only to people known for scandals and is precisely applicable to cases such as this one. BRMo (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I think the spirit of BLP:1E is to prevent articles on people known primarily for scandals. Zagalejo^^^ 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
Weak KeepDelete. You have to seriously contort WP:ATHLETE to make it even come close to supporting the notability of this individual. Someone said in the previous AfD that she should fulfill the criteria because she is playing in the highest level of amateur competition available to her at her age. Sorry, but the notability requirements for athletes do not in any way make any such exceptions for this argument. Even if you somehow get around this obvious problem, you still have to deal with the fact that she also fails WP:BLP1E. This was a one-time thing, there are no sources that suggest that she any notability that extends outside one exceptional but otherwise unnoteworthy game. Trusilver 09:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Changed my position per discussion below. Trusilver 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have been considering this one over and over for days now and though I had been somewhat swayed that this meets the spirit of the notability guidelines if not the exact wording of the policy, I keep being drawn back to WP:ATHLETE and the fact that this information is just better being consolidated with the article User:BRMo originally attempted to merge it to. Trusilver 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This shows a severe limitation in 1E - when the event is not as notable as the person becomes as a result of the event. In this case, we cannot cover the event in the way the spirit of the policy means. A congratulatory meeting with the President, and the placing of her jersey into the Baseball Hall of Fame put this beyond the normal "dog bites man" concerns that the policy is meant to address. The Hall of Fame thing is the real kicker for me, as this demonstrates ongoing notability. Jim Miller (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- comment - The article—all three sentences of it—deals with only one game and the recognition this girl received from it. It fits very nicely in 2005 in baseball, and BLP1E clearly recommends that such articles should be merged and shouldn't be stand-alone biographies. BRMo (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Except that WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply since none of the references or the article in question are about the event. I can't even find a box score of the game. If there was WP:RS coverage of the game itself that met WP:N, and included trivial mentions of this subject, then WP:BLP1E would apply. If it really applied in this case, we would have the usual recommendations to merge/rename to the event. The policy is not designed to limit notability, but to maintain perspective of which is more notable - the event or the individual involved. In this case, the individual's notability has clearly surpassed that of the event. Jim Miller (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- comment - The article—all three sentences of it—deals with only one game and the recognition this girl received from it. It fits very nicely in 2005 in baseball, and BLP1E clearly recommends that such articles should be merged and shouldn't be stand-alone biographies. BRMo (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:IAR Which is also policy LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Lots of people who have had "meet and greets" with the president, very few of them are truly notable. Her jersey was part of a women in baseball exhibit at the hall of fame, she herself was not elected to the hall of fame.. She has done no other noteworthy things.. Kinston's original argument is even false.. little league baseball is not actually the highest level of competition for youth athletes.. the best young players play on all-star and tournament teams which are a much higher level of play than what is generally played in little league. We really should not set a precedent of placing little league baseball players in wikipedia. Spanneraol (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The article is well sourced, the girl is notable for a variety of reasons flowing from the "one event," and while I don't think she passes WP:ATHLETE, there are numerous reliable independent sources that have chronicled her noteworthy, unique achievement and the follow-up to it. Seems to me the steady stream of recognition she's achieved (particularly her jersey going into the Hall of Fame) takes this out of 1E territory - the independent coverage has not been marginal or cabined in a broader overall discussion. Townlake (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- comment Well, you have just pretty much explained how she doesn't pass notability requirements. At what part of your argument do you explain how she does pass notability requirements? So far, all I have seen from the keeps are variations of WP:ILIKEIT as well as my favorite, WP:IAR (the last refuge of people trying to keep garbage articles). So far I have not yet seen a legitimate rationale for notability. Show me one and I would be inclined to reconsider my position. Trusilver 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Reply Please assume good faith here - quoting WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." We have that, don't we? The only reason to delete would be 1E, but there's a list of unique traits and aftermath to this girl's accomplishment that to me get it past the marginalness indicated by 1E. (It's comparable to the Jason McElwain story in certain respects.) Reasonable people may disagree, but the murkiness pushes toward article improvement, not deletion. Townlake (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It should also be considered if she has any notability outside of this one event... And really she doesn't the event may be notable and as such it is rightly included in 2005 in baseball.. but Katie really is not a notable person in any other regard.. do we want people who know Katie adding to her bio with other details about her life? There are privacy issues involved with a bio of a young girl. Spanneraol (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP1E, and if we start deciding xfD discussions on the basis of WP:IAR, then let's just shut down the whole process. Corvus cornixtalk 18:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to 2005 in baseball. She received enough attention to merit a mention somewhere, but an independent article on a Little Leaguer is really pushing things. We could probably fit the entire content of this page into 2005 in baseball, so no information will be lost in a merge. Zagalejo^^^ 18:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- comment - I already merged the article into 2005 in baseball. When my merge/redirect to the original article was reverted, I decided it had to go to AfD again as a violation of WP:BLP1E policy. BRMo (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reason I gave last time: "*The standard for WP:ATHLETE for an amateur is "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Little League is the highest level available in baseball for people of her age. Her gender makes her a rarity in the sport, and her accomplishment has been achieved by only a select few. She has been honored by the Baseball Hall of Fame as the article states. ... The article is sourced with independent third party sources. This person is notable by amateur athletes standards." Kinston eagle (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply The standards make no mention of "highest level available... for her age".. it's just highest level available. As I say above, this isn't even the highest level for little league.. the best little league players play on all-star and tournament teams.. the quality of play at regular little league varies greatly depending on the league and district. No records exist as to perfect games in little league.. I know one kid in my son's league threw a no-hitter last week.. i'm sure perfect games occasionaly happen. She was part of an exhibit at the hall of fame, she personally was not inducted into the hall. Her game got some minor attention but her life is not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: If we were to follow the logical extension of Kinston eagle's comments, then every person who has every played in Little League would be notable. Corvus cornixtalk 22:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Though I'm on the keep side here, CC is correct. If this article survives, it can't be under WP:ATHLETE. Townlake (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As a note, since no female player has ever been inducted into the baseball hall of fame, this young lady was given the same honor as the entire All-American Girls Professional Baseball League - being added to the Women in Baseball exhibit. Where the AAGPBL was given the honor as a group, this young woman got the honor as an individual. Jim Miller (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Though I'm on the keep side here, CC is correct. If this article survives, it can't be under WP:ATHLETE. Townlake (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2005 in baseball as the information is already merged. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The game is an event, and the Baseball HOF is a second event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have a total of three mentions over the years in publications that would be considered non-trivial. Yet I'm not notable. Why's that? because regardless of the fact that I'm mentioned doesn't mean that the mentions were for anything unusual or extraordinary. And neither is this article. She was not inducted into the hall of fame, and she has done something that kids do all the time in little league which is not all that notable either. Trusilver 06:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- 12 year old girls pitch no hitters all the time? Perhaps then a list article with all of the 12 year old girls who have pitched no hitters would be appropriate then. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. Even one of the people who support keeping the article admitted that she completely fails WP:ATHLETE. Is it neat that she accomplished this? sure, why not. Is it encyclopedic? not at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have been overy this from every angle and if we are going by policy, every applicable policy clearly states that an article should not exist for this. Trusilver 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Point of Order I'm not sure it's an "admission of completely failing ATHLETE" as much as it is recognizing that ATHLETE's easy-keep standards don't apply. The article still passes the fundamental WP:N test, as well as this aspect of WP:BIO: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." I don't think many 12 year old girls are recognized for their achievements by the Hall of Fame to the point where they become part of a lasting exhibit. Townlake (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable argument. I have spoken to a friend of mine who coaches little league and he explained that no-hitters are far more common in little league than they are in professional baseball. (makes sense to me, I suppose) If this is fact, than the hype surrounding this article stems ONLY from the fact that she's a 12 year old girl. And if this is the case, does her age and gender in conjunction with doing something not at all extraordinary qualify her for notability? Trusilver 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I'd respond to that with a couple things. First, there's a difference between a no hitter (which I agree is common in LL) and a perfect game where the pitcher strikes out every batter (as is the case here). The latter is far, far more rare, no matter who is pitching. The fact this was done by the only girl in her Little League, against a squad of all dudes, is the whole reason this was made into a big deal to begin with - the Hall of Fame saw fit to label it extraordinary, which is not something they do lightly. Townlake (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, while I'm not 100% convinced that this article fully passes notability standards themselves, I do feel that it has at least a weak grasp on the spirit of the notability standards. That said, I'm changing my position to a weak keep. Trusilver 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's still just one event.. A perfect game does not mean they struck out all the batters... it just means they didn't reach base... could be a ground out a strikeout, a flyout whatever... In any matter, it may be a unique event but I still don't think it makes Katie worthy of her own article. Spanneraol (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- To be clear about it, in Katie's perfect game she DID strike out all the batters. In other words, a perfect perfect game. I'm not sure this had ever been accomplished in organized ball at any level before. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the Little League website says "it does happen a few times each year". Zagalejo^^^ 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- To be clear about it, in Katie's perfect game she DID strike out all the batters. In other words, a perfect perfect game. I'm not sure this had ever been accomplished in organized ball at any level before. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's still just one event.. A perfect game does not mean they struck out all the batters... it just means they didn't reach base... could be a ground out a strikeout, a flyout whatever... In any matter, it may be a unique event but I still don't think it makes Katie worthy of her own article. Spanneraol (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, while I'm not 100% convinced that this article fully passes notability standards themselves, I do feel that it has at least a weak grasp on the spirit of the notability standards. That said, I'm changing my position to a weak keep. Trusilver 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I'd respond to that with a couple things. First, there's a difference between a no hitter (which I agree is common in LL) and a perfect game where the pitcher strikes out every batter (as is the case here). The latter is far, far more rare, no matter who is pitching. The fact this was done by the only girl in her Little League, against a squad of all dudes, is the whole reason this was made into a big deal to begin with - the Hall of Fame saw fit to label it extraordinary, which is not something they do lightly. Townlake (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable argument. I have spoken to a friend of mine who coaches little league and he explained that no-hitters are far more common in little league than they are in professional baseball. (makes sense to me, I suppose) If this is fact, than the hype surrounding this article stems ONLY from the fact that she's a 12 year old girl. And if this is the case, does her age and gender in conjunction with doing something not at all extraordinary qualify her for notability? Trusilver 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Point of Order I'm not sure it's an "admission of completely failing ATHLETE" as much as it is recognizing that ATHLETE's easy-keep standards don't apply. The article still passes the fundamental WP:N test, as well as this aspect of WP:BIO: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." I don't think many 12 year old girls are recognized for their achievements by the Hall of Fame to the point where they become part of a lasting exhibit. Townlake (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. Even one of the people who support keeping the article admitted that she completely fails WP:ATHLETE. Is it neat that she accomplished this? sure, why not. Is it encyclopedic? not at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have been overy this from every angle and if we are going by policy, every applicable policy clearly states that an article should not exist for this. Trusilver 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- 12 year old girls pitch no hitters all the time? Perhaps then a list article with all of the 12 year old girls who have pitched no hitters would be appropriate then. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Question - A question for those of you who are voting for keep. I'm actually ok with the idea that Brownell's game and the subsequent recognition deserve to be covered by Wikipedia. But why does it have to be in a separate biographical article? Regardless of the technicalities of WP:BLP1E, the spirit of it seems quite straightforward—if it's possible to merge coverage of a person who is temporarily newsworthy into another article rather than having a separate biography, it is preferable to do so. I've demonstrated that the material in this article can be merged into 2005 in baseball; if another location is preferable, that would be fine too. But it doesn't need to be a biography. Since BLP1E advises doing a merge and redirect, what's the objection to doing that? BRMo (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The article satisfies WP:RS, but let's think about this. Is a kid pitching a perfect game encyclopedic? The answer to that is no, sources or not. I'm invoking WP:IAR here, I don't see how this is worthy of an article. Wizardman 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm sure this happens quite often (and I am sure that it's going to happen over and over again in the future), and there is no reason to pick out this one incident as notable. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- The fact that something happens "quite often" and "that it's going to happen over and over again in the future" is not a valid argument. War, for example, happens "quite often" and in all probability will "happen over and over again in the future". This would not reduce the notability of World War II, for example. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Unfortunately, rain happens too. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- If a girl throwing a perfect game in Little League by striking out every single batter faced happens quite often as you claim, please provide sources for other examples, I would very much like to read about them. Kinston eagle (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ahh -- there's the logical rub. If it happens so often that it's non-notable, then it doesn't get reported. A bit of a conundrum. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- The fact that something happens "quite often" and "that it's going to happen over and over again in the future" is not a valid argument. War, for example, happens "quite often" and in all probability will "happen over and over again in the future". This would not reduce the notability of World War II, for example. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I no longer think that just having two RSs makes someone notable when the accomplishment is not itself of any real importance. I'd like some evidence that this is. I'd accept it if it happened in the LL national championship./ The deciding factor for me was the cite above that it happens several times a year in the LL. DGG (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Again If you can provide sources that show Cooperstown routinely recognizes girls who pitch perfect, all-strikeout games against all-boy LL teams, we're anxious to see those sources. Townlake (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that the Hall of Fame took note of this really only proves that her parents are better at getting publicity for their kid than most Little League folks. Spanneraol (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Townlake, you're failing to prove why this article is particularly notable. It happens often, if Cooperstown notices one particular one, that doesn't make it that much moe notable. Wizardman 20:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply The gender component of the story is the distinguishing factor that touched off the stream of recognition. That's why Cooperstown took an unusual interest in her. (As an aside: the reason I've been so interested in this AfD is that I find it fascinating the Baseball Hall of Fame deems her notable, but Wikipedia might not.) Townlake (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Is Cooperstown just trying to be "with it" and "politically correct" by choosing 1 youth (who happens to be female)? And doesn't the difficulty of the event (which is why it is logged when a professional pitcher does it) depend on the skill of the batter? 27 strike-outs by players of this age/skill level does not seem that notable. (IMNO) Ron B. Thomson (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's actually only 18 strikeouts in this case. Little League is only six innings. Spanneraol (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Is Cooperstown just trying to be "with it" and "politically correct" by choosing 1 youth (who happens to be female)? And doesn't the difficulty of the event (which is why it is logged when a professional pitcher does it) depend on the skill of the batter? 27 strike-outs by players of this age/skill level does not seem that notable. (IMNO) Ron B. Thomson (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply The gender component of the story is the distinguishing factor that touched off the stream of recognition. That's why Cooperstown took an unusual interest in her. (As an aside: the reason I've been so interested in this AfD is that I find it fascinating the Baseball Hall of Fame deems her notable, but Wikipedia might not.) Townlake (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Townlake, you're failing to prove why this article is particularly notable. It happens often, if Cooperstown notices one particular one, that doesn't make it that much moe notable. Wizardman 20:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that the Hall of Fame took note of this really only proves that her parents are better at getting publicity for their kid than most Little League folks. Spanneraol (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Again If you can provide sources that show Cooperstown routinely recognizes girls who pitch perfect, all-strikeout games against all-boy LL teams, we're anxious to see those sources. Townlake (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Frankly, the arguments to keep this are terrible. What's next, junior croquet players? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (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.
