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 no consensus: suggest rename and cleanup; as per WP:NOTNEWS, this person is not notable, however if additional citations can be provided, the incident itself can stand on its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Yamaoka[edit]

This article is about a person notable only for a single accident. The article should be deleted and what is salvageable should be merged into the cheerleading article. AniMate 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Same argument used on prior AfDs, all of which closed as keep. This is the fifth nomination now, not second. (AfD moved to proper title) SpectralAgent (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this comment is this user's very first substantial edit to Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which does not make the facts I stated any less valid. SpectralAgent (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick didn't say that your edit was less valid. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the implication. Else, why say it? SpectralAgent (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: SpectralAgent has made no other edits except to this AFD, the first of which was made 4 minutes after registering the account, and has made no edits since. MSJapan (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E, although I'm kind of on the edge here. She seems to have fallen from grace (ha!) after her big fall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SpectralAgent. She's still getting news coverage to this day, so I would say she's jumped over BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point out where she is still getting news coverage? Also, is the coverage about her or about her accident? AniMate 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. I shouldn't have !voted in this in the first place, BLP is one of my weak spots. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete WP:BLP1E. 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 22:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Two years later, she is still being mentioned [1], [2]. BLP1E was covered in earlier AfDs. SpectralAgent (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Based on [3] and other months for this year, this article has been viewed about 1000 times this year. Seems quite a bit of activity for someone supposedly not notable. SpectralAgent (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: no less notable now than during previous AfDs; prior supporting arguments still hold. Xsmith (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Obviously a biased vote on my part, as I've nommed this in the past, but my argument is well-reasoned. First, re: the news, the jezebel item is a throwaway reference on a blog, and the reference has nothing to do with the main story (as the writer clearly states). The Memphis Flyer coverage is also a throwaway reference in a book review for a book about cheerleading. I would therefore say that the coverage is trivial (and certainly not about her), and has been for years at this point. Article views for an article not about the subject stated are not indicative of notability of the subject. Most importantly, there has never been any followup with her by any news agency (she was pretty much forgotten after a week), and frankly, we don't really know any biographical details about her aside from the fact that she went to SIU and fell off a pyramid during a basketball game. This should indicate something fundamentally problematic about the article. MSJapan (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. The individual isn't even close to encyclopedically notable. The incident itself isn't even notable enough for a standalone article, although it could be briefly mentioned in a page related to Southern Illinois University sports and/or a page on cheerleading risks or injuries. Quale (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: When I attempted to redirect this to a section in Cheerleading on the dangers of cheerleading (which was something requested on that article's talk, IIRC), I added the pertinent accident info in there, but the redir was rm'ed as "no consensus". That information and section is still in the article, with the citations used here. MSJapan (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this person is a cheerleader who made national news because of an accident, which does not establish notability at all. This is a WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS violation. KleenupKrew (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the notability depends upon the overall significance. It this case there was permanent national significance relating to the sport. Read section 3 of the article. Some more citations would help/. DGG (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the deletion rationale requires too much hyperfocus and dissection to work. "She is only notable for..." is another way of saying "she is notable". We do not have any guideline that says people must be notable for more than one reason, or must be notable for their primary job or what-not. And to ask "Are the news stories about her or her accident" seems asinine. She passes notability. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (rename if one likes) DGG's analysis is, IMHO, quite right as regards the NOT#NEWS concerns. Any BLP1E objections may be addressed by the retitling of the article and the adaptation of its text to a less biographical, more event-centric form (I'm not at all sure that I see retitling as necessary or that I think the article to be styled wrongly as a biography—in fact, I'm inclined to think, for various reasons, including certain of those offered by Spectral, that Yamaoka is properly a subject and is, in view of repeated and non-narrow coverage in secondary sources, notable—but I'd not be opposed to a retitling [or, I suppose, recasting], consistent with our occasional practice of addressing BLP1E concerns about articles that reference incidents of unquestionable notability by retitling those articles). Joe 02:43, 29 April 2008 (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.