Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delilah DiCrescenzo
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 keep. There are three main issues raised in the discussion: 1) WP:ATHLETE - As written, the guideline states: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport." Because she has competed, she passes. Whether the guideline is faulty may be discussed on the guideline's talk page, but as for now, it is what it is. 2) WP:GNG - There is no consensus on this matter, i.e. whether the sources count as significant coverage. 3) WP:NOTINHERITED - The song does not automatically make her notable. All in all, this article is kept because she passes WP:ATHLETE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delilah DiCrescenzo[edit]
- Delilah DiCrescenzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This page is a BLP of an American amateur athlete. According to WP:ATH, the page does not meet the criteria for amateurs. It appears likely that the real reason for page creation is the relationship of the subject to a popular song. The contents of the page duplicate material already present at Hey There Delilah#Inspiration for song. The page fails criteria for notability at WP:MUSICBIO and at WP:ITSA. In April, I tagged the page (diff), and there has been negligible further editing of the page since then. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, athlete has competed at the highest level of sport in the US, and contended for the Olympic team. Kolindigo (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A further, related comment: I agree with Edward's analysis of the Olympic issue. My reasoning in applying WP:ATH was in part that, and also the fact that a single national championship seems less than a world championship, although I realize that the latter point may be the most ambiguous one in making this decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - She competes in national meets, but has yet to have an accomplishment to meet wp:athlete. Being the subject of the song falls under wp:oneevent. The reliable sources cover her only in the context of the one event. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. She fails WP:ATHLETE. The criteria doesn't say "highest level in the US (or other country), it says "highest level". That is Olympics or World Championships. The song thing.....you're kidding, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the highest level of competition in the amateur sport of Women's 3000m steeplechase would be international competition and not the Olympics or World Championships in the same way that the highest level of competition in baseball would not be the World Series. Per the IAAF (governing body), she has competed at the international level as evidened by this. She in fact, finished third at that particular championship. And there is coverage about her that is wholly unrelated the song as per this interview from Runner's World. Being the inspiration for a hit song as documented in multiple news reports which one cannot help but trip over in any search of her name just adds to the notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing links on the aspects of this discussion about which I have been the least sure. However, the first link you provide gives only a minor mention of a third-place finish in an article mostly about other events. I would like to know what editors who know more about athletics than I do think about whether a Runner's World interview rises to notability. As for the song, the multiple news reports still only seem to relate to one event. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I can understand that it's not exactly concrete, but my interpretation is that for a sport like Track & Field, #2 of wp:ath should be followed. "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.". If you go just by an athlete's performance in an international meet, then it opens it up to many other things (what was the competition like at the meet? what place do you have to finish? I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but going by other track athletes who do or don't have an article, it seems like participation in World Championships or Olympics is the criteria.
- As far as the Runner's World article, I don't believe that coverage in a specialized publication alone meets wp:n. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certain topics get very little coverage outside of "specialized publications". Sports like track and field, body building, shooting sports etc. don't see much mainstream coverage. So specialized publications, as long as they are reputable, should be considered equally. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Athletes don't magically show up at international level competitions. That they made it that far means that they've made it past the competition at the national level to reach the international stage. So as with you, at the risk of people raising WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'll point out that some journeyman hockey player who mostly rides the bench in the minor leagues but manages to get called up and appear in one game at the NHL level would be deemed automatically notable even if there's no significant coverage about him. But it takes an amateur athlete to make it to the Olympics ( which is a single event that only happens once every four years), or the World championships which is a single (usually) yearly event to be notable seems to be setting the bar in wildly different places for notability. And yes, I admit this little mini-rant probably needs to be discussed in the guidelines page and not here. Having said that, her IAAF profile shows that she has indeed competed at the 37th IAAF World Cross Country Championships which thus fills the overly strict criteria of WP:ATHLETE. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Don't know about the Cross Country...I'm going by clicking World Championships on #2 of WP:ATHLETE. That page says IAAF World Championships in Athletics is the "world championship" for athletics. That would seem to make sense, as the worlds garner much more attention than cross. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As listed at the IAAF site, the world governing body for atletics, [1] lists a separate cross country championship. -- Whpq (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions (and these really are questions, because I don't know): With respect to her IAAF profile, how do her accomplishments compare with other BLPs we have of athletes in her area? (Put another way, do most athletes with her accomplishments also have WP bios, or is she here because of the song?) And with respect to the IAAF cross country championship, does that mean that, for cross country, this championship exists in place of the world athletics championship, or is this a specialized competition occurring in addition to cross countries at the world athletics? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to the good question. Let's take a look at her teammates on the World Cross team, simply because they have similiar (actually better) accomplishments. Rebecca Donaghue, [2] - some nice results, was in 5000 m for Olympic Trials, finished 8th. 5th at qualifying for worlds this year. Julie Culley [3], 7th at 5000 m Olympic trials, actually made the world team this year, should have article. Emily Brown, [4], who won the US Cross Qualifying this year, I think she was hurt for last year's trials. Samia Akbar, [5] also was a teammate, participated in the 2007 Worlds for Marathon, could have article, but doesn't. Except Brown, I am certain that all of these athletes have competed in Europe recently with decent results (a quick glance of DD's competition at that international meet.. I recognize one other name).
- Other BLPs of athletes in her area.. Jenny Barringer (see talk page for more refs about her, haven't had a chance to put them in the article yet.. Denver Newspaper, USA Today, etc.).. Anna Willard (just added Boston Globe feature on her as a ref).. Kara Goucher.. Shalane Flanagan.. check out the refs for them.
- As far as the second part of your question, there's no Cross Country at the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, similar to IAAF Race Walking championships or the Juniors. Hope this helps. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that very helpful info. If I understand correctly, by and large similar athletes with similar accomplishments but no song do not have BLPs, whereas the IAAF cross country can be considered a world competition. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Yes I also was hoping to show that many others runners have received significant coverage in what was described as "mainstream coverage". Another example is an article I created, Kate O'Neill.. she has feature articles in USA Today, the Boston Globe and the Hartford Courant. I can't find the same coverage for DD, except for the song. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Thinking about this, it seems to me that it becomes significant how we interpret the criterion at WP:ATH, where it says "who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport." One way of interpreting it is that "competed" means simply having been a participant in the highest-level competition. By that interpretation, every athlete entered in a world championship race is automatically eligible for a BLP, regardless of where they placed in the results. (I say that while recognizing that it is an achievement just to be entered.) Alternatively, it could mean participating in the competition and achieving a result at the highest level, ie., not just participating in the competition but winning, or setting a record, or performing in some other way that is "the highest amateur level." Although, like other editors in this talk, I recognize the problems with otherstuff reasoning, it seems to me that, in practice, the blue-linked pages on runners here follow the second interpretation pretty consistently, and that is what distinguishes them from the red-linked ones. I think that the "keep" arguments tend to rest upon applying instead the first interpretation, along with giving some weight to the song and the interest in the song in the media. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd like to point out that the existence of articles is heavily influenced by the interests of the editors. We have a huge number of football (soccer) fans. As such, pretty much every player to have made an appearance anywhere will get documented here at Wikipedia. In fact, it gets to the point where pages football players that haven't met notability guidelines get created and put through AFD on a very regular basis. Compare that to the number of fans for amateur athletics and you will end up with an imbalance of articles. I would not put too much weight to the fact that the majority of articles for these other runners are ones that have won major events. It is a reflection of the number of editors interested in the field. I'd also like to point out that making the distinction that one has to have done well at the Olympics or World Championships makes the criteria far too stringent when compared to the "made one appearance" concensus used with professional athletes. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The way I understand it is for T&F athletes, if you made the Olympics or the IAAF World Championships in Athletics (not the Cross Country event, not the Racewalking event, not the Junior event—the link goes to the one event), then you meet wp:athlete. The general notability guidelines always comes first, but in this case I feel that the song is wp:oneevent. This is getting a little off the topic of the specific article, but I think that's a pretty good guideline. Think about it this way—for a pro soccer, hockey, baseball, etc. team, they generally have a large amount of fans of the team and general followers of the league. Therefore, anyone who appears for a team will generate interest. A player who had one at-bat in 1906? Not so much, but it's not perfect. For an individual who can't earn a top 3-5 placement for their country in qualifying events every two years... I really don't think there's much interest in the individual. There's always wp:n to fall back on. Perhaps this conversation should be continued on the talk page for wp:athlete, or there could be a request for clarification. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that WP:ATH needs to have some discussion for clarification in general, but for the moment, I'll just comment about what it means for the AfD here. I tend to agree with Omar's take on it. I also can see a logical conundrum in Whpq's argument. It seems like an inference to say that the reason pages for runners are the way they are is entirely due to editor interest, as opposed to editor judgment. I do not think we should keep this page simply because there is a supposed surplus of pages about footballers and other professionals, in order to counteract some sort of unfair imbalance. If, for argument's sake, we say that it is correct that amateur runner pages have been overlooked due to lack of editor interest, then the question arises of why this page does exist. It then becomes very difficult to argue that it exists because of ATH criteria (what ATH criteria made editors take notice of this subject and not the red-linked ones?), and would actually seem to reinforce the appearance that the page exists only because of the song. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for creating this page may have been the song. But it is irrelevant in the same way that promotional autobiographies filled with peacock terms are not judged by why the article was created. The article is to be judged onthe criteria of notability. On this account, the subject has competed at an IAAF World Championship. WP:ATHLETE spcifically states that competing at a world championship meets notability. It doesn't say "competed at and did very well". If that was the requirement, we'd see qualifiers the the statement to identify that they must have earned a medal, or made it into the final heat. But it doesn't. It simply states competed. And she did compete, confirmed with a reliable source. In addition to this, I've already pointed out to interviews in Runners World which seems to have not been given much weight at all. -- Whpq (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: As I've written a couple times here, I believe wp:athlete is referring to the specific IAAF World Championships and not other events such as Cross, Racewalking or the Juniors. Those events are held at a completely different time of year, a different location, etc. etc. It is totally separate and distinct from the IAAF World Championships. I asked for clarification here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Question_about_wp:athlete_for_IAAF_athlete. I realize that you're replying to Tryptofish's competing/competing well point, but my point is that no, she didn't compete at the IAAF World Championships. (I also don't understand where this competed/competed well issue came from, it seems clear me...if you competed, you meet the guideline, period).
- Also, I don't believe that an interview in the Daily Runners World is significant coverage meeting wp:n. They've been interviewing runners almost every weekday for years now. Gosh, if everyone they've interviewed is deemed as meeting wp:n, then you could probably say that every post-collegiate participant in a running event meets wp:n (and many college athletes as well). Also, not sure if it makes a difference, but those interviews are only offered online, not in their print publication. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for creating this page may have been the song. But it is irrelevant in the same way that promotional autobiographies filled with peacock terms are not judged by why the article was created. The article is to be judged onthe criteria of notability. On this account, the subject has competed at an IAAF World Championship. WP:ATHLETE spcifically states that competing at a world championship meets notability. It doesn't say "competed at and did very well". If that was the requirement, we'd see qualifiers the the statement to identify that they must have earned a medal, or made it into the final heat. But it doesn't. It simply states competed. And she did compete, confirmed with a reliable source. In addition to this, I've already pointed out to interviews in Runners World which seems to have not been given much weight at all. -- Whpq (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that WP:ATH needs to have some discussion for clarification in general, but for the moment, I'll just comment about what it means for the AfD here. I tend to agree with Omar's take on it. I also can see a logical conundrum in Whpq's argument. It seems like an inference to say that the reason pages for runners are the way they are is entirely due to editor interest, as opposed to editor judgment. I do not think we should keep this page simply because there is a supposed surplus of pages about footballers and other professionals, in order to counteract some sort of unfair imbalance. If, for argument's sake, we say that it is correct that amateur runner pages have been overlooked due to lack of editor interest, then the question arises of why this page does exist. It then becomes very difficult to argue that it exists because of ATH criteria (what ATH criteria made editors take notice of this subject and not the red-linked ones?), and would actually seem to reinforce the appearance that the page exists only because of the song. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The way I understand it is for T&F athletes, if you made the Olympics or the IAAF World Championships in Athletics (not the Cross Country event, not the Racewalking event, not the Junior event—the link goes to the one event), then you meet wp:athlete. The general notability guidelines always comes first, but in this case I feel that the song is wp:oneevent. This is getting a little off the topic of the specific article, but I think that's a pretty good guideline. Think about it this way—for a pro soccer, hockey, baseball, etc. team, they generally have a large amount of fans of the team and general followers of the league. Therefore, anyone who appears for a team will generate interest. A player who had one at-bat in 1906? Not so much, but it's not perfect. For an individual who can't earn a top 3-5 placement for their country in qualifying events every two years... I really don't think there's much interest in the individual. There's always wp:n to fall back on. Perhaps this conversation should be continued on the talk page for wp:athlete, or there could be a request for clarification. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd like to point out that the existence of articles is heavily influenced by the interests of the editors. We have a huge number of football (soccer) fans. As such, pretty much every player to have made an appearance anywhere will get documented here at Wikipedia. In fact, it gets to the point where pages football players that haven't met notability guidelines get created and put through AFD on a very regular basis. Compare that to the number of fans for amateur athletics and you will end up with an imbalance of articles. I would not put too much weight to the fact that the majority of articles for these other runners are ones that have won major events. It is a reflection of the number of editors interested in the field. I'd also like to point out that making the distinction that one has to have done well at the Olympics or World Championships makes the criteria far too stringent when compared to the "made one appearance" concensus used with professional athletes. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Thinking about this, it seems to me that it becomes significant how we interpret the criterion at WP:ATH, where it says "who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport." One way of interpreting it is that "competed" means simply having been a participant in the highest-level competition. By that interpretation, every athlete entered in a world championship race is automatically eligible for a BLP, regardless of where they placed in the results. (I say that while recognizing that it is an achievement just to be entered.) Alternatively, it could mean participating in the competition and achieving a result at the highest level, ie., not just participating in the competition but winning, or setting a record, or performing in some other way that is "the highest amateur level." Although, like other editors in this talk, I recognize the problems with otherstuff reasoning, it seems to me that, in practice, the blue-linked pages on runners here follow the second interpretation pretty consistently, and that is what distinguishes them from the red-linked ones. I think that the "keep" arguments tend to rest upon applying instead the first interpretation, along with giving some weight to the song and the interest in the song in the media. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Yes I also was hoping to show that many others runners have received significant coverage in what was described as "mainstream coverage". Another example is an article I created, Kate O'Neill.. she has feature articles in USA Today, the Boston Globe and the Hartford Courant. I can't find the same coverage for DD, except for the song. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that very helpful info. If I understand correctly, by and large similar athletes with similar accomplishments but no song do not have BLPs, whereas the IAAF cross country can be considered a world competition. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions (and these really are questions, because I don't know): With respect to her IAAF profile, how do her accomplishments compare with other BLPs we have of athletes in her area? (Put another way, do most athletes with her accomplishments also have WP bios, or is she here because of the song?) And with respect to the IAAF cross country championship, does that mean that, for cross country, this championship exists in place of the world athletics championship, or is this a specialized competition occurring in addition to cross countries at the world athletics? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As listed at the IAAF site, the world governing body for atletics, [1] lists a separate cross country championship. -- Whpq (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Don't know about the Cross Country...I'm going by clicking World Championships on #2 of WP:ATHLETE. That page says IAAF World Championships in Athletics is the "world championship" for athletics. That would seem to make sense, as the worlds garner much more attention than cross. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Athletes don't magically show up at international level competitions. That they made it that far means that they've made it past the competition at the national level to reach the international stage. So as with you, at the risk of people raising WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'll point out that some journeyman hockey player who mostly rides the bench in the minor leagues but manages to get called up and appear in one game at the NHL level would be deemed automatically notable even if there's no significant coverage about him. But it takes an amateur athlete to make it to the Olympics ( which is a single event that only happens once every four years), or the World championships which is a single (usually) yearly event to be notable seems to be setting the bar in wildly different places for notability. And yes, I admit this little mini-rant probably needs to be discussed in the guidelines page and not here. Having said that, her IAAF profile shows that she has indeed competed at the 37th IAAF World Cross Country Championships which thus fills the overly strict criteria of WP:ATHLETE. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - and addiitonal interview from Runner's World and a brief paragraph from ESPN. -- Whpq (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an FYI, some editors here may perhaps be interested in this somewhat-related discussion of WP:ATH at the Village Pump. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I asked specifically about the IAAF world championships (race walking, cross) here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Question_about_wp:athlete_for_IAAF_athlete --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing that. I've looked over the talk there, and the last two years of archives, hoping that the question of what "competed" means (simply being there versus finishing strongly) might have already been discussed to a consensus. Nuh-uh! What have I gotten myself into?! (smile) I'm starting to learn what a controversy WP:ATH has actually been. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I asked specifically about the IAAF world championships (race walking, cross) here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Question_about_wp:athlete_for_IAAF_athlete --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - It is not clear whether she meets ATHLETE or not, but a failure to meet it is not sufficient reason for deletion. She does meet the GNG, and I do not believe BLP1E applies here. The coverage of the song inspiration has last 2 years, including multiple interviews so there is no reason to believe she is tryign to maintain a low profile about it. (Granted if it was only the song, I would say redirect.) She meets the GNG based on athletic-based stories alone: Runner's World 1, Runner's World 2, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times 1, Chicago Sun Times 2, IvyLeagueSports.com notes "Delilah DiCrescenzo ... is simply the best female steeplechaser in Ivy League history. A three-time League champion in the event, she has run the best time (10:06.88) in Ivy history", Alexandria Times: "Delilah DiCrescenzo beat out five other top distance runners, setting the second best time in the world this year at 9 minutes 47.41 seconds.", Puma Running, and so on
If it is determined that she doesn't qualify for an article, a redirect to Hey There Delilah#Inspiration for song is certainly warranted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About your last point, I agree with you about the redirect. But I see a lot of issues with your other points. I just do not see how the length of time there has been coverage of the song makes the page meet notability, or how it exempts it from one-event, or from WP:ITSA, since she did not write or perform the song. I was interested to see from your links that there was coverage in the two major Chicago newspapers. When I went to the link from from the Tribune, I couldn't read the article because I didn't want to pay. But the two from the Sun-Times look to be home-town coverage of a local high-school student (favorite pizza, etc.), not really evidence of competition at the world level. The Ivy League site is interesting in that it documents first-places and records, but it's still about the Ivy League, which is far from national, not to mention world. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly the argument for notability based on the song alone would be pretty weak; I just don't feel it falls under BLP1E. BLP1E is intended to protect private individuals who are involved in some news coverage, not to say someone known for only 1 thing isn't notable. If she had say written the song she would certainly be notable without based on "one event." Now being the inspiration for a song is certainly a weak claim of notability and I wouldn't argue for a keep on that basis. (I should have probably just left my opinion on this off my first post since it was actually irrelevant to the argument I was making.)
- However, if we compare "Delilah DiCrescenzo" "plain white" to "Delilah DiCrescenzo" -"plain white" we find 39 news stories about her that mention Plain White T's compared to 139 that don't. So there are over 100 news stories that are presumably about her running as opposed to the song. Granted many of these will be trivial mentions among a list of other athletes you also competed at the same time. However, there are a number that are exclusively about her - I just listed the first several I found, not nearly all of them.
- There are many people who argue that athletes that fail athlete are never notable. This view, while common, is not supported by the plain language of WP:Notability (people) which clearly states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." A person can still be worthy of inclusion if they meet the general requirement "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This is the basis that I am arguing for inclusion on.
- Although, local sources are generally discounted at AfD, there is actually no guideline stating that sources have to be non-local to prove notability. This is because proposals to establish such a criteria have failed to gain consensus. Regardless, even if we discount the Chicago sources there are still several sources to pick from which aren't local in nature.
- So IMO, even if she fails ATHLETE (which isn't clear it seems), she still qualifies for an article under the general criteria. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the clarification, which is very helpful. (For what it's worth, I repeated your search with similar terms like "song" and "hey there" and got very similar results, but the results all look to be either special interest runner sources, local coverage in Chicago papers, or Ivy League sources as above.) This is the first AfD I have started, and it's proving to be quite a learning experience for me. Speaking personally, I feel as though the keep arguments are relying upon accumulating a critical mass of what I consider to be trivial details, that can debatably be considered in-policy (by applying a subjective reading of poorly-written and internally inconsistent policies), and concluding that they add up to a keep, when I feel that a common sense analysis points clearly to delete. But of course, that's just my opinion. Objectively, I think the decision is coming down to (a) a decision of how WP:ATH applies (which depends upon interpreting ambiguities in its wording), and (b) a decision as to whether the sources you discussed just above (and which we both agree are frequently - I think mostly or entirely - trivial when taken individually) can add up to general notability when combined. That seems to me to be all-too-much in the eye of the beholder. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to note that "specialty" sources are certainly valid for determining notability if they meet the criteria set out in WP:RS. If they were not, we would have a lot less articles on scientific and medical topics (for example) that aren't well known, but are certainly important to their respective fields. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the clarification, which is very helpful. (For what it's worth, I repeated your search with similar terms like "song" and "hey there" and got very similar results, but the results all look to be either special interest runner sources, local coverage in Chicago papers, or Ivy League sources as above.) This is the first AfD I have started, and it's proving to be quite a learning experience for me. Speaking personally, I feel as though the keep arguments are relying upon accumulating a critical mass of what I consider to be trivial details, that can debatably be considered in-policy (by applying a subjective reading of poorly-written and internally inconsistent policies), and concluding that they add up to a keep, when I feel that a common sense analysis points clearly to delete. But of course, that's just my opinion. Objectively, I think the decision is coming down to (a) a decision of how WP:ATH applies (which depends upon interpreting ambiguities in its wording), and (b) a decision as to whether the sources you discussed just above (and which we both agree are frequently - I think mostly or entirely - trivial when taken individually) can add up to general notability when combined. That seems to me to be all-too-much in the eye of the beholder. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About your last point, I agree with you about the redirect. But I see a lot of issues with your other points. I just do not see how the length of time there has been coverage of the song makes the page meet notability, or how it exempts it from one-event, or from WP:ITSA, since she did not write or perform the song. I was interested to see from your links that there was coverage in the two major Chicago newspapers. When I went to the link from from the Tribune, I couldn't read the article because I didn't want to pay. But the two from the Sun-Times look to be home-town coverage of a local high-school student (favorite pizza, etc.), not really evidence of competition at the world level. The Ivy League site is interesting in that it documents first-places and records, but it's still about the Ivy League, which is far from national, not to mention world. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think she meets WP:Athlete per User:Whpq's source. Strikehold (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Has competed at the highest level of world amateur cross country, and further articles in reliable sources reinforce her notability (regardless of whether one considers these reliable sources "minor"). Wikipedia incorporates aspects of various specialised encyclopaedias (in this case, an athletics one). A pertinent parallel example of this is 15818 DeVeny, which of course would be detailed in a specialised astronomy encyclopaedia. (Note: I'm 100% sure that this long conversation wouldn't be happening if she hadn't been mentioned in a particular song.) Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 14:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, I would not have started the AfD were it not for the song, because I would not have noticed the article in the first place. The other side of the coin is whether the page would exist were it not for the song, because, as shown above, she has other teammates who placed higher than her, but who do not have pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.