Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kristi Yamaoka

This page should be deleted because Kristi Yamaoka is non-notable except for her accident, which has basically given her 15 minutes (or maybe 3 days) of fame. To expand on that, the result of this accident (which seems to be the barometer of notability) was a ban or certain routines for one women's tournament in one division (which was over the same day of the accident or a few days later once the Salukis won the title to go to the NCAA tournament (from the MVC website). Furthermore, the ban recommendation already looks like it will not pass, even according to the articles that stated the recommendation in the first place. Lastly, the only things we know biographically about Kristi Yamaoka are her height, weight, and high school she graduated from. MSJapan 17:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:HOLE. -- Krash (Talk) 17:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• WP:HOLE is not a policy or guideline. The article passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) which IS a guideline. Even were WP:HOLE a guideline, it states that we should " establish the significance of your biographical subject with verifiable citations from reliable sources". The article is well sourced, as suggested by WP:HOLE. --Durin 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's certainly neither. But it certainly reflects my feelings towards the article. Minutely notable but not important. -- Krash (Talk) 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• With respect, you've cited two more essays in addition to WP:HOLE. Those essays are not policy or guidelines either. WP:BIO is, and this article passes that. The information on the article is verifiable, comes from reliable sources (major news media), and can be presented in a neutral point of view. --Durin 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's my opinion that being in the news does not immediately make someone a notable encyclopedic topic. Why can't you accept that. You don't have to like it. Just accept it. -- Krash (Talk) 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't accept it because it is not Wikipedia policy. It is your opinion. I accept your opinion as being yours, and you are certainly welcome to it. It is not, however, policy. --Durin 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• From WP:N: "The subjective nature of notability is merely an issue of defining a guideline for it. When people mislabel an article as "non-notable", they can easily be convinced/outweighed by more knowledgable editors. AfD is a discussion, after all." If you truly believe this is a notable topic then you have nothing to worry about. -- Krash (Talk) 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Which of course does not preclude me from commenting on why this article should not be deleted. --Durin 18:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ... 14:57, 14:58, 14:59, DING. Fifteen minutes are up. Non-notable. Fan1967 17:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Plenty of people with considerably less fame have articles on them in Wikipedia. In Yamaoka's case, shes' been the subject of media attention from a broad range of major media outlets, including ABC, NBC, ESPN, CNN and hundreds more. She received a call from President Bush and also appeared on The Today Show. It isn't just the accident that made her famous, it's her actions afterwards that made her famous. The ban that you note may be overturned is in effect for the NCAA tournament, not just the MVC women's tourney (which is not over, it's still going on). Try searching for "Kristi Yamaoka" at http://news.google.com/. This generates more than 500 news article hits. Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifically states as a test for inclusion in Wikipedia, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Having nationwide news attention, getting on The Today Show, getting a call from the President, etc., well exceeds that criteria. --Durin 17:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It fails every other test, though, and "notoriety" and "flash in the pan" are different things. Notoriety is Paris Hilton, not Paris, Michigan. MSJapan 17:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter if the article fails every other test. It is a valid test and it clearly passes; you grant that yourself. It passes. By your criteria which is (paraphrasing) "Delete any biographies that fail all but one of the criteria at WP:BIO#People_still_alive", we should then delete articles on a huge number of sports figures, since most of them would fail all the other criteria except for being sports figures. If you feel that failing all but the one criteria which you agree she passes is sufficient to delete the article, you're going to need to come up with better rationale for the deletion. Otherwise, you stand in disagreement with Wikipedia guidelines without justification. --Durin 17:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, then: Would you have created an article on her prior to March 7, 2006? I also recreated your news search, and it occurs to me that in a few weeks, there will likely be nothing available for news on her. You're basing your claim of notability on a current event, and once the event is over, said individual(s) involved are no longer notable. More importantly, what do you see being added to this article that will make Kristi notable as a person, and how is this any different from John Smith who fell off his roof and hurt himself? Because there was a camera around? I think I'm more than justified, and at this point, it's no longer up to you or me, as we've already voted. MSJapan 18:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Consider eventualism. A vast, vast majority of the people on whom we have biographies are not going to be anything more than obscure footnotes in history 100 years from now. Yet, we have biographies on them. For example, a substantial number of NFL players are completely unremarkable except for the fact that they are NFL players. They've barely even made it into the spotlight, most haven't had any news articles focusing on them, and certainly many of them have never appeared as the subject of a major media story. In applying your criteria, it's useful as a check to apply such criteria against other articles of similar type. Your criteria does not work; we'd have to delete a very broad range of articles if your justification is valid. The subject of the article is already notable for having been in major news media all over the country. It's unlikely she'll be famous for any other reason, but that does not disqualify the article. This is dramatically different than John Smith having fallen off the roof because of the news media attention that it drew. The news media thought it was important enough to warrant attention. The Today Show thought it was important enough to fly her, a friend, and her doctor to New York City to appear on the show. The president thought she was important enough to spend time calling her. Lastly, AfD is NOT about voting. It's a concensus building mechanism. Discussion is certainly relevant and useful. --Durin 18:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I would say Consider eventualism as a reason not to keep. By the time this AfD is decided, a week from now, she will be mostly forgotten. The guy shot by Dick Cheney will be more remembered than this girl even a month from now. Fan1967 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• We already have an article on Harry Whittington, the person Cheney shot. Not a terribly good analogy :) If we should use a criteria like "eventually, nobody will remember this person" then we should set about deleting tens of thousands of biographies of people that easily fit within this (very subjective) criteria. --Durin 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Eventually we will all be worm food and will be forgotten, so the question is not whether this person will be forgotten eventually. The question is whether they'll be forgotten next month. Fan1967 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ok. Show me the policy or guideline that specifies this as a deletion criteria? --Durin 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't the very concept of notability imply that people will remember you a month from now? On the other hand, there's an easy solution here. We can Keep for now, and if someone Prod's or AfD's the article on April 15, see if anyone contests it. Fan1967 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• The same arguments would apply. You've still not cited a deletion criteria that shows that an article can be deleted if the person will be forgotten in a month. "Being forgotten" is highly subjective. Certainly a month from now the American Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators is going to remember the subject of this article in their April meetings regarding bans on various types of cheerleading stunts. Notability is a frequently contested deletion criteria. The very discussion we're having here is a microcasm of that far larger debate. That's why it's important to rely on verifiable sources, getting material from reliable sources and presenting the article in a neutral point of view, all of which this article does (and all of those are policies). --Durin 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, if this article is AFD'ed in a month or two, and in fact, at that time, she has been forgotten, I think that would meet the definition of "not notable". Fan1967 19:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• You have commented such before. You still haven't cited a Wikipedia policy or guideline which states this. THAT needs to be the criteria for deletion; not people's opinions on whether she'll be notable in a month or not. --Durin 19:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• If we have this discussion in a month, it won't be about whether she will be forgotten. It will be about whether she has been forgotten. Fan1967 19:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• ...which has no relevance on whether the article should be deleted or not. Show me the policy that says we should delete articles on people which might be forgotten in a month. Your opinion isn't policy. My opinion is that we shouldn't have individual articles on pokemon characters like Wally (Pokémon) and Will (Pokémon), but my opinion isn't policy. My opinion doesn't affect my voting on whether something should be deleted or not. Policy and guidelines do. I've cited WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V; all of these are policies or guidelines, and this article passes all of those. Opposite to these, no policies or guidelines have been cited, only essays. Show me the policy that says we should delete this, and there's a pretty good chance I'll join you in voting to delete this article. So far, nobody has provided one shred of policy or guideline that says we should delete it. --Durin 19:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about deleting someone who might be forgotten. I'm talking about someone who has been forgotten. Fan1967 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Then you're referring to WP:BIO#People_still_alive, yes? If so, the article passes. Can you cite some other policy or guideline that tells us we should delete this article? --Durin 19:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, what it looks like you did is notice that this article fails every standard test, and then use Google. Google hits are an alternative test, but the hits need to be "distinguishable hits" - this means that the 500+ hits you got that are all on the same story don't have the weight of 500 distinct hits. Therefore, the article also fails that test, and does not meet any of the notability requirements at all, as originally stated. MSJapan 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, this is the right margin. You're squishing me.

• partial re-indentingWP:BIO#People_still_alive says "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". If her appearance on CNN, ESPN, ABC, NBC, etc..etc...etc.. doesn't qualify her participation as the center of a newsworthy event, I dare say I fail to understand what your qualification under this test would be. --Durin 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about this: try your search on Google News again, and take note of the fact that there hasn't been an article on her in three days. That means that from March 6-8, there were a ton of articles with mostly the same information, and from March 8-10, nobody cared anymore. What I am trying to illustrate is that this is only newsworthy because it is sensational, not because it is notable. We know nothing about Kristi aside from the accident (which is what 90% of her "biographical" article is about, BTW, which makes it not a bio stub at all), which shows that she is only notable because of the accident, not in addition to it. The only reason it's a big thing is because somebody had a camera on her at the time and sold the footage. The benchmark for notability has to be more than a week. Also, think about this: if she's so injured, how did she get on five networks in three days, and how is she going to try out for the squad again in six weeks? So, in the grand scheme of things, is she really notable? As far as i can tell, she's had three days of coverage, and now no one cares, so she's not notable. This is why, also, WP doesn't tend to do current events - there is far too much bias wrt five minutes of media exposure. MSJapan 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I respect your opionion, but Wikipedia policy does not agree with your stance. Despite repeated requests to the people who want to delete this article to provide a basis in policy to delete, to date no policy citation has been provided which shows why this article should be deleted. --Durin 18:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I gave plenty of reasons why, and cited a number of policies, as have others. However, if you want to take your interpretation of WP:NN, for example (temporarily passing one of 15 tests and failing the rest still means the person is notable), as "clear indication of notability", of course you're not going to find "a basis in policy to delete" - you're just going to oppose deletion because the article passes 1% of the criteria, rather than allowing for deletion because it fails 99% of the rest of the criteria. Id like to know why you fell this need to get this given up - is it so you can win a little victory for now, even though it can simply be re-AfDed in a week when it is absolutely clear (as if it wasn't now) that she isn't notable? If so, you're violating WP:POINT. I'm really not going to comment on this any further, because I have a feeling that your intent after this will be to show that since it caused such a "huge debate" on AfD, she's clearly notable. MSJapan 18:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that further commenting would not help, since you're now attributing emotions and thoughts to me that I never voiced. Hopefully we can agree to disagree. You think it should be deleted. I think it should be kept. Happy? --Durin 19:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Very Weak Keep let's just wait a few months, passes notability for now Eivind 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not trying to be combative here, but if it passes notability now, it passes always. There is no aging specification for notability. As noted above, if that were the case we should be deleting thousands of biographies. --Durin 20:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• We should be. Some notability is lasting, some quite ephemeral. Fan1967 20:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. "Notable now" is not the same thing as "notable for all time". A good example is sportspeople. A current player who has played a handful of games is more notable than a guy who played a handful of games 50 years ago. Reyk 23:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This person is notable. — TheKMan^talk 20:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as plausibly notable. — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteKsprayDad 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep agreed, this person is a least sort of notable, meriting that this article be kept. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, lots of people have accidents, I don't one of them getting a few TV appearances necessarily makes her notable. Gazpacho 22:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Errr, Keep I guess. Not really very worthwhile but the article is pretty good, so since Wikipedia is not paper I don't see the harm in keeping her.Herostratus 02:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete The piece is newsworthy (for now) but Wikipedia isn't the 6:00 news.Montco 03:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Newsworthy, but not encyclopedia-worthy in the slightest. The fifteen minutes ended last week. Stifle 01:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly unusual case that deserves inclusion here. Also think if we delete this we should also delete the really vile nonsense like wp:hole. -- JJay 02:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.