Talk:Kristi Yamaoka

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.

Copied Kristi Yamaoka (oldid, history) → Cheerleading (diff)
Copied Kristi Yamaoka (oldid, history) → Cheerleading (diff)

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

redirect to Cheerleading#Dangers of cheerleading, 5 September 2008, see discussion.
no consensus, April 23, 2008, see discussion.
keep, June 9, 2007, see discussion.
keep, September 5, 2006, see discussion.
keep, March 27, 2006, see discussion.
no consensus, March 9, 2006, see discussion.

Prod removed[edit]

I removed the {{prod}} tag from this article. This person made national news, was contacted by the President of the United States, and appeared on The Today Show. The argument for deletion on the prod tag was "We don't want people hurting themselves to get into an encyclopedia". I don't find that to be a valid argument; she is not famous for her accident, she is famous for her reaction to it, and her reaction placed her firmly in the spotlight of national news. Furthermore, her fall had significant nationwide consequences on cheerleading, as the article now notes. If you want to delete this article, then please place it for AfD. I personally don't think it qualifies, especially as fleshed out and sourced. --Durin 16:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to AfD, as the article fails WP:BIO and conforms to WP:NN. See the AfD page for reasoning. MSJapan 17:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article passes WP:BIO#People_still_alive where it says "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". --Durin 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not newsworthy if no one cares about it after three days. MSJapan 18:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the passage of time, this is still nn.[edit]

I still have not seen any substantial changes to this article since what was originally added in March, and I have watched this page for over five months since that time. The only thing that has changed has been various puerile vandalism that was summarily reverted. For a BIO article, it includes almost nothing about Kristi herself that wasn't taken from the news about her. The biographical vcontent amounts to one paragraph, and the rest of the article is about her accident.

As brief evidence, Google News has no hits on her, and out of the top 10 hits on a regular Google search, the very first is this article. The others are all stories from the days after the accident.

Thus, Kristi is notable not for herself or what she has done, but for what happened to her. Furthermore, since April has come and gone, the NCAA committee meeting apparently did not change the status quo at all. Therefore, I think that this article is still non-notable and does not meet any of the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. I feel that this article should be deleted as nothing but a vanity article at this point, though I would like to hear other people's views on the matter. MSJapan 16:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That an article hasn't been changed in some months is not a reason for deletion. That a person is not currently newsworthy is not a reason for deletion either. --Durin 00:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been changed since "Best Week Ever" was added, and she wasn't newsworthy three days after the accident. That aside, you're still avoiding the point, which is that this article does not conform to WP:BIO and never did. MSJapan 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you keep saying. It's already been through two AfDs. It's highly unlikely anything has happened to make this article more likely for deletion. But, if you feel motivated to do so, then feel free to nominate it yet again. This would be your third time nominating the article for deletion. --Durin 02:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it meets WP:BIO's "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Xsmith 01:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Define a "newsworthy event" -- where's the minimum? Local news? Or are you saying for example, that everyone killed or wounded in any war is notable enough to have a WP article by virtue of being involved, whether or not their personal actions were noteworthy? Someone loses a limb, and it makes CNN for a day -- is that WP article-worthy? Mining accidents, traffic stops, police beats, all these things make the news; the difference is that if you look at a real bio article, even a modern one, these are people with years of notable experience in their areas of expertise or interest, or who have done something extraordinary in their area. You don't expect every member of an Olympic team to have an article, for example, but the medal winners, sure. I could go on and on, but my point is that the actual biographical information makes up almost no part of this article despite five months to expand it. I was hoping there would be some rational thought behind this pet project, but apparently not. MSJapan 03:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note you are now asserting the people in support of this article are irrational. Obviously you feel very strongly about this. As I noted above, you are free to nominate this article for deletion, now for the third time. I would suggest that your desire to have this article deleted will be better served than calling those of us here on this talk page irrational. --Durin 12:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, everyone who competes in the olympics passes WP:BIO, and if one were so inclined to write an article about any given olympian, it'd survive AfD, as long as it was referenced. WilyD 15:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There are plenty of people from olympic competitions who are, to current knowledge, completely non-notable. This is not a reason for de-inclusion in the encyclopedia. The idea of "100 year test" and "20 year test" as being described on the current AfD on this article is completly anti-thetical to the very nature of an encyclopedia. This is not an encyclopedia-current. This is an encyclopedia. The guideline at WP:BIO clearly, unequivocally states "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". The detractors of this article insist it does not pass this criterion. I am at an utter loss as to understand how a person thrust into the national spotlight by her actions in cheering from a stretcher, having articles appear in literally hundreds of printed media and probably thousands of online media, appearances on different media programs, a phone call from the president and more fails to qualify under this criterion. If Kristi Yamaoka fails this criterion, then we must fundamentally undermine large segments of Wikipedia as completely unremarkable, non-notable entities. I dare anyone to remember who Guy Gabaldon was, without looking at the article on him. None of you will remember. He'd fail the 100 year test at 60 years, much less 100. Yet, it is important to the very nature of a comprehensive encyclopedia that we have an article on such individuals. Kristi Yamaoka didn't do what Guy did, but she did captivate a nation with her spirit and intensity of desire. --Durin 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Captivating a nation" is frankly, a violation of NPOV (because it's opinion), and an unsourced statement. She got 3 days of coverage, and that was it, and that was only because there's more sensational news in accidents than there is in anything else. There are lots of things that are newsworthy events in the short term, but the problem is that these events don't normally make a difference when viewed in historical objectivity.MSJapan 18:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is not an article, but a discussion page, NPOV is not a requirement and does not apply. Sorry. --Durin 18:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, when your justification for an article (which is what this discussion is about) shows clear bias, it does apply. "Sorry." MSJapan 19:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV applies only to articles. It does not apply to talk pages. It does not apply to AfD discussions. Supporting an article's retention is inherently POV. Your wish to remove the article is inherently POV. Can't be avoided. So no, WP:NPOV does not apply as you suggest it should. --Durin 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal -- I came across this article as she was just mentioned again in a Fox News story about cheerleading accident rates. The mention was in passing, but then, that's why I came to wikipedia: to look up the name and see what the original story was about her accident. It's a head-scratcher that some people want to delete the article. What, is Wikipedia running out of room and needs to free up some space? Should I send Wikipedia another dollar to cover the necessary drive space and bandwidth? --TheCynic (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]