564:
run of the dizzying array of articles that come down over the wire every day. Every one of the media outlets that ran articles on Kristi
Yamaoka thought it was newsworthy enough to be in their particular media outlet's output. It doesn't matter if it is a replica of a news wire article. The fact of the matter is hundreds of media outlets found the incident and the outcomes of it to be sufficiently news worthy. Trying to minimize the impact of this by saying the articles are replicates of each other entirely misses the point. Should we never include notable events in Knowledge when such events only have one reporter handy to write a story first hand? --
554:
arguments for keeping this article are unfounded, but what I do think is somewhat irrational is using conflated google counts spawned by massive reproduction of a few wire stories to show encyclopedic value. Hence, in July, when those have disappeared, the issue can be addressed without this distortion. Per the point about disruption, I don't think renominating this for deletion when some distance has been established can be considered disruptive - that is simply acknowledging the bias of WP inclusion choices. We can disagree on this, surely, without deciding that one or another course of action is simply disruptive.
490:. Hence, there was no vote to strip, delete or merge anything. I also don't believe that anything was resolved. Furthermore, the comparison with SS is not even germane given the massive difference in news coverage. To my knowledge, the Saugeen Stripper, unlike Ms. Yamaoka, was never a guest on the Today show or featured on primetime news or the recipient of a call from President Bush. The SS also did not have an impact on organized sports. Instead of clouding the issue or playing with crystal balls, you should thus recognize that the keep voters here are perfectly "rational". --
452:
too strong to allow for rational consensus to form while the item is still relatively fresh. The conflation of news coverage with notability is regrettable but understandable. Cf the
Saugeen Stripper, which was roundly declared to be of immense encyclopedic value (ok that's an exaggeration) until the meme wore off and AFD was able happily to merge it back to obscurity where it belongs. Hasta julio.
477:
article was generally resolved, so my language may be flippant but the point is germane. And that was when the material was still rather fresh. By July, no-one will care and this can be dealt with without the interference of news-established notability obscuring the issue (which is not to say it would necessarily be deleted - that's just my prediction).
563:
The argument that a handful of wire stories being replicated across a number of media outlets is an irrational basis for notability is, I think, missing the point. Each media outlet, from your local newspaper through to the biggest names in the business, make editorial decisions on what news items to
797:
Suppose we have one "temporarily famous" person like this a week. That’s only 52 articles a year. In ten years there would be 520 people added to
Knowledge. There are 80286 entries in the Living people category. If every “person of the week” had been added to Knowledge since its inception they would
704:
This individual quintessentially embodies a concept of continuing to do one's job under adversity beyond all expectations. Is there any better example of this concept to date in western culture? This could serve as the ultimate example of this phenomenon for generations to come. At this time, the
113:
I believe in the last AfD I was criticized for crystal-ballism in predicting that she would be forgotten by now. Her 15 minutes are now, officially, over and she is not notable. We may see an occasional "Where is she now" article on a slow news day, but that's it. (May soon be time to drop the entry
719:
clearly states "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Given all of the press attention, appearance on a number of TV shows, a call from the
President of the United States, and ONGOING press coverage, the article clearly passes this requirement. The above
451:
If the nominator cares enough, set a reminder to bring this back in July and I predict you will get a total of four to six votes, all to delete or merge. This is obviously unencyclopedic ephemera, but the bias for including recent news events on WP under the guise of encyclopedic content is simply
302:
a blanket justification to include any old thing that comes to mind - if policies were meant to be exercised in a vacuum, there would be 47 million articles on absilutely anything on here, and there aren't. It was apparent then and it is apparent now that Kristi
Yamaoka is only notable for falling
283:
Well, you could discuss making it an event article on the talk page, as a solution if you wish (e.g. a name change). I'm not recommending it, but it's a valid option, worth discussion. Deletion, as an option, has already been ruled out. We can not allow noms who fail, to simply keep trying until
83:
Kristi
Yamaoka is nn, and that is even more evident since no substantial biographical improvements have been made to the article in any fashion since the last AfD on March 9 - not even a birthdate. There are also no news articles directly about her in Google News dating after the 11th of March.
476:
Well, you are welcome to disagree with my personal view of course and you don't have to be sorry. But re the SS, by WP edit war standards it was more like a minor skirmish, the issue was resolved through a merge which stands as of now, and the 46-20 AfD vote to strip (sorry) the SS of a separate
297:
Because it's still valid - the article still fails the tests; it did three days after the fact, and it does now two weeks later. The basic issue with this not being AfDed is that people are (and were) confusing short-term popular consciousness (fifteen minutes of fame) with long-term notability
553:
Well, let's keep some perspective here. I think editors could well make a case that this is not a major event or a major subject, but given the tools typically used to determine relevance, the items listed by jjay to establish notability can distort encycopedic value. That is not to say that
298:(enough to be in an encyclopedia for all time, as it were). The claim before was that it would be expanded, but this has not happened in over two weeks, as evidenced by the history, and therefore is not likely to be expanded in future. The excuse that WP is not paper is
780:
states in its first sentence that an article should not be immediately renominated unless there is a good reason for people to change their minds. The last AfD on this was 6 delete to 7 keep. In the 12 days since then, there's not anything to make this bio
151:
303:
on her head on video and waving her arms, not for any individual accomplishments. If nationwide news were a prerequisite, every disaster on record would need to be here on WP, which is why WP is neither a current events log nor a newspaper.
689:
With a no consensus vote, and a look at the history shows no substantial changes to the article since the 9th, which is almost three weeks ago. The issue is not when it wasa AfDed, but when this bcame non-notable.
273:
article, this is a bio stub. Evereyone keeps conflating the event with the person: while the event may be notable, the person is not, which is a valid reason, and what I was trying to show the last time too.
854:- people will search for this. Maybe deletable in a couple of years when/if it becomes clear that she has been forgotten, but right now this is a notable personality/event in U.S. college athletics. (
705:
correct decision is the one already made, which is to keep. WP is the place people should expect to be able to come and find information about transformative events and people such as this.
540:
Thanks. My feelings on that were expressed with my initial comment. A failed prod followed by a failed AfD and now a second failed AfD should be an indication that it is time to move on. --
487:
529:. Eusebeus suggested that the nom should wait till July, and renominate, to get a more favorable voter turn-out. I feel that type of approach would be disruptive. --
255:, and no reason given this time (that wasn't rejected last time). Even without a prior AFD, I would vote keep, given the coverage, and the effect of the event. --
252:
662:. She fell on her head, she showed school spirit, the end. Her fifteen minutes of fame are long gone, and this isn't the Short-Attention-Span Knowledge. --
312:
Just as a point of clarification, the previous AfD was not closed as "Keep". It was closed as "No consensus" which has, I believe, somewhat less weight.
174:
She's last month's news. I doubt anyone is going to devote much effort to improving the article now. What you see is what there is, and is likely to be.
465:
Sorry, but that is false. The SS AfDs resulted in No
Consensus. The merge set off a very nasty edit war. I hope that is not what you are suggesting. --
503:
I think if there were a 3rd nomination, by a previously involved party, that would have to be seen as being intentionally disruptive to
Knowledge. --
753:
798:
constitute less then .5% of the articles on living contemporary people. Ms. Yamaoka is probably closer to a person of the month on top of that.
418:. The massive media attention to Ms. Yamaoka's injuries led to changes in the great sport of cheerleading. That's why we need this article. --
732:
Show of late. This article passes WP:BIO. If it doesn't, then a broad range of articles will need to be put up for AfD. For a sampling, see
589:"Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."
362:
195:
936:
911:
899:
875:
859:
846:
831:
815:
802:
789:
694:
682:
670:
654:
642:
630:
597:
584:
568:
558:
544:
533:
520:
507:
494:
481:
469:
456:
443:
422:
402:
390:
367:
343:
325:
316:
307:
292:
278:
259:
243:
231:
219:
200:
178:
156:
118:
105:
92:
71:
618:
288:", you're admitting you're just repeating yourself. What is the practical purpose of arguing the same thing, all over again? --
165:
17:
321:
History of article creation has shown that once a legit article is created, exapansion follows. I'm watching for sixty days.
351:, barely notable enough. Maybe everything that will ever be written on her is already there, and that's just fine with me.
843:
623:
953:
777:
415:
36:
952:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
840:
357:
190:
102:
920:
Contributing to mankind is not a criteria for inclusion in
Knowledge. What contributions to mankind did
894:
769:
387:
126:, as she did cause Missouri to ban the "tossing or launching of cheerleaders". She also appeared on the
384:
376:
773:
613:
581:
828:
432:
379:
441:
352:
185:
720:
statement that there is no news of her since March 11th is false as she's been mentioned in the
135:
721:
322:
240:
215:
65:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
811:
Probably person of the year or decade for cheerleaders. She is certainly one of my heros. --
908:
883:
872:
667:
166:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kristi+Yamaoka%22&hl=en&lr=&start=270&sa=N
827:. Worth keeping back then, still worth it now. Quick re-nomination suggests bad faith. -
729:
725:
638:
not so much for her herself, but because what directly resulted in what happened to her.
608:
921:
765:
733:
594:
526:
131:
77:
925:
757:
745:
737:
716:
555:
530:
504:
478:
453:
437:
414:. Obsessively renominating the same articles is highly disruptive and a violation of
399:
340:
313:
289:
256:
175:
115:
85:
54:
785:
notable, in fact rather the opposite. Currently, this AfD is 5 delete to 18 keep. --
486:
Not to belabor the point, but the AfD you keep referring to closed as no consensus-
239:
It needs a lot of work, but sometimes DOBs and other concrete info are hard to find.
749:
706:
691:
304:
275:
211:
89:
59:
49:
929:
868:
799:
761:
741:
663:
228:
150:
184:
And what's wrong with that? Isn't
Knowledge littered with "last month's news"?
933:
855:
786:
651:
639:
565:
127:
227:
Given that Wikapedia is not paper I don’t see why we can’t keep her article.
812:
679:
541:
517:
491:
466:
419:
84:
This article furthermore fails all of the standard and alternative tests in
138:
678:
This survived AfD less than two weeks before it was renominated!?!
516:
Um, could you clarify? Which article are we talking about now? --
946:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
339:
per Fan (my cat, who is named "Saluki", will be mad, though).
650:, that it made the news means it has already been "noted". —
778:
Knowledge:Deletion_policy#Limitations_on_renomination
412:
survived an AfD nom by the same user just 12 days ago
103:
Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD"
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
488:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper 2
956:). No further edits should be made to this page.
284:they get what they want. When you're point is "
286:...what I was trying to show the last time too.
8:
605:for this notable victim of cheerleading. -
907:Famous but no contribution to mankind. --
754:Jeremy Glick (September 11 attack victim)
932:and several others (as above) make? --
7:
210:as per TBC. That's a good point. --
251:Based on the result of the recent
24:
398:. Unencyclopedic in the extreme.
375:, asserts a bit of notability. --
149:
137:, many of which are relevant. --
114:on the guy Cheney shot, also.)
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
134:. Google shows 81,000 results
101:Knowledge is not a newspaper.
1:
44:The result of the debate was
973:
876:19:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
860:12:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
847:17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
832:21:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
816:21:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
803:21:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
790:15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
695:14:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
683:07:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
671:01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
655:01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
643:18:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
631:18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
598:17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
585:16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
569:15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
559:22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
545:18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
534:17:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
521:17:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
508:17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
495:16:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
482:15:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
470:14:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
457:14:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
444:14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
423:13:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
403:11:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
391:10:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
368:08:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
344:04:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
326:07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
317:07:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
308:17:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
293:06:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
279:05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
260:03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
244:03:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
232:02:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
220:02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
201:16:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
179:01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
157:00:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
119:00:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
106:00:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
93:00:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
937:19:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
912:04:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
900:01:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
416:Knowledge:Deletion policy
72:03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
949:Please do not modify it.
269:However, this is not an
32:Please do not modify it.
774:Pamela Rogers Turner
525:I was referring to
88:for living people.
869:Cheerleader#Safety
841:Christopher Parham
770:Karen Louise Ellis
628:
722:Chicago Sun-Times
610:the.crazy.russian
607:
155:
70:
964:
951:
897:
892:
889:
886:
728:and been on the
629:
626:
621:
616:
611:
440:
435:
382:
365:
360:
355:
198:
193:
188:
154:
153:
147:
144:
141:
68:
62:
57:
52:
48:
34:
972:
971:
967:
966:
965:
963:
962:
961:
960:
954:deletion review
947:
895:
890:
887:
884:
776:. Furthermore,
730:Ellen Degeneres
726:The Independent
624:
619:
614:
609:
606:
582:Maxamegalon2000
433:
431:
380:
363:
358:
353:
196:
191:
186:
145:
142:
139:
81:
66:
60:
55:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
970:
968:
959:
958:
942:
941:
940:
939:
922:Kenneth Pinyan
915:
914:
902:
878:
862:
849:
834:
829:Colin Kimbrell
821:
820:
819:
818:
806:
805:
792:
766:Jason McElwain
734:Kenneth Pinyan
710:
698:
697:
686:
685:
673:
657:
645:
633:
600:
587:
574:
573:
572:
571:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
538:
537:
536:
527:Kristi Yamaoka
511:
510:
500:
499:
498:
497:
473:
472:
460:
459:
446:
425:
405:
393:
370:
346:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
319:
310:
263:
262:
246:
234:
222:
204:
203:
169:
168:
159:
132:Best Week Ever
121:
108:
80:
78:Kristi Yamaoka
75:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
969:
957:
955:
950:
944:
943:
938:
935:
931:
927:
926:Carlie Brucia
923:
919:
918:
917:
916:
913:
910:
906:
903:
901:
898:
893:
882:
879:
877:
874:
870:
866:
863:
861:
857:
853:
850:
848:
845:
842:
839:, per above.
838:
835:
833:
830:
826:
823:
822:
817:
814:
810:
809:
808:
807:
804:
801:
796:
793:
791:
788:
784:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
758:Randal McCloy
755:
751:
747:
746:Kayla Rolland
743:
739:
738:Carlie Brucia
735:
731:
727:
723:
718:
714:
711:
709:28 March 2006
708:
703:
700:
699:
696:
693:
688:
687:
684:
681:
677:
674:
672:
669:
665:
661:
658:
656:
653:
649:
646:
644:
641:
637:
634:
632:
627:
622:
617:
612:
604:
601:
599:
596:
592:
588:
586:
583:
579:
576:
575:
570:
567:
562:
561:
560:
557:
552:
546:
543:
539:
535:
532:
528:
524:
523:
522:
519:
515:
514:
513:
512:
509:
506:
502:
501:
496:
493:
489:
485:
484:
483:
480:
475:
474:
471:
468:
464:
463:
462:
461:
458:
455:
450:
447:
445:
442:
439:
436:
429:
426:
424:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:
404:
401:
397:
394:
392:
389:
386:
383:
378:
374:
371:
369:
366:
361:
356:
350:
347:
345:
342:
338:
335:
334:
327:
324:
320:
318:
315:
311:
309:
306:
301:
296:
295:
294:
291:
287:
282:
281:
280:
277:
272:
268:
265:
264:
261:
258:
254:
250:
247:
245:
242:
238:
235:
233:
230:
226:
223:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
205:
202:
199:
194:
189:
183:
182:
181:
180:
177:
173:
167:
163:
160:
158:
152:
148:
136:
133:
129:
125:
122:
120:
117:
112:
109:
107:
104:
100:
97:
96:
95:
94:
91:
87:
79:
76:
74:
73:
69:
63:
58:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
948:
945:
904:
880:
871:and delete.
864:
851:
836:
824:
794:
782:
750:Mathias Rust
712:
701:
675:
659:
647:
635:
603:Lots of keep
602:
590:
577:
448:
430:per JJay. --
427:
411:
407:
395:
372:
348:
336:
299:
285:
270:
266:
248:
236:
224:
207:
171:
170:
161:
123:
110:
98:
82:
45:
43:
31:
28:
930:Brian Wells
909:Masssiveego
873:Thatcher131
762:Roger Olian
742:Brian Wells
702:Strong Keep
676:Strong Keep
408:Speedy Keep
593:per Jay.
410:. Article
130:and VH1's
128:Today Show
595:RGTraynor
578:Weak keep
373:Weak keep
349:Weak keep
253:first AFD
237:Weak Keep
208:Weak keep
162:Weak keep
124:Weak keep
580:per TBC
556:Eusebeus
479:Eusebeus
454:Eusebeus
400:Marskell
267:Comment:
164:. Only [
795:Comment
707:cmsb705
692:MSJapan
449:Comment
438:iva1979
314:Fan1967
305:MSJapan
276:MSJapan
212:Deville
176:Fan1967
172:Comment
116:Fan1967
99:Delete.
90:MSJapan
905:Delete
844:(talk)
800:Seano1
717:WP:BIO
664:Calton
660:Delete
396:Delete
359:master
337:Delete
229:Seano1
192:master
111:Delete
86:WP:BIO
934:Durin
865:Merge
856:ESkog
787:Durin
652:Pengo
640:Stev0
566:Durin
388:e Ong
354:Grand
271:event
187:Grand
16:<
881:Keep
852:Keep
837:Keep
825:Keep
813:JJay
783:less
724:and
713:Keep
680:Jcuk
668:Talk
648:Keep
636:Keep
591:Keep
542:JJay
518:JJay
492:JJay
467:JJay
428:Keep
420:JJay
249:Keep
225:Keep
216:Talk
67:talk
51:psch
46:Keep
867:to
625:(E)
620:(C)
615:(T)
531:Rob
505:Rob
377:Ter
341:Joe
323:TKE
300:not
290:Rob
257:Rob
241:TKE
928:,
924:,
858:)
772:,
768:,
764:,
760:,
756:,
752:,
748:,
744:,
740:,
736:,
715::
666:|
385:nc
364:ka
218:)
197:ka
64:|
61:mp
896:ε
891:e
888:o
885:M
434:S
381:e
214:(
146:C
143:B
140:T
56:e
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
