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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Yamaoka[edit]

This page violates all the guidelines for a BIO article. The majority of the article isn't even about the subject, but rather what happened to her. The Google results initially used to prevent AFD reveals no other stories outside of the ones just after the accident in March. There have been no substantial changes in content for over five months, and the subject hasn't been newsworthy since three days after the accident. The article was justified then by others because she was on the news and The Today Show, and she has since faded back into obscurity. The apparently important NCAA meeting that was also cited as upcoming also failed to make the news, and the results also failed to make this article. Thus, there were no real repercussions from the event, and what we are left with is a vanity article about a person who is noteworthy because of what happened to her rather than because of something she did that was of any real substance. MSJapan 19:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is just too long. It should be a brief entry due to the coverage it got at the time.--Hatch68 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You should expect a biographical article about a person to focus on what makes them newsworthy, encyclopaedic, whatever. That's not a flaw in thsi case, just indicates that the article isn't "complete". Lack of completeness is not a criterion for deletion. Saying she's noteworthy because of what happened to here rather than what she did reeks so strongly of POV I'll just disregard it entirely. The article is sourced, and vaguely encyclopaedic. "Encyclopaedic value" isn't something you lose, so the failure to develop argument is one I also find unconvincing. Thus, I'm relucktantly forced to conclude we should keep the article, even though it's a real Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. WilyD 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE:This article has been nominated twice for deletion by the same user as is making this nomination for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (second nomination). --Durin 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Nothing has changed since the last two nominations to make this person less notable than they were before. I restate my objections to this deletion as before;

My comments from the first nomination: "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. "

My comments from the second nomination:"WP:BIO 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 statement that there is no news of her since March 11th is false as she's been mentioned in the Chicago Sun-Times and The Independent and been on the Ellen Degeneres 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 Kenneth Pinyan, Carlie Brucia, Brian Wells, Kayla Rolland, Mathias Rust, Jeremy Glick (September 11 attack victim), Randal McCloy, Roger Olian, Jason McElwain, Karen Louise Ellis, Pamela Rogers Turner."

Nothing has changed regarding this person's notability to possibly conclude the invalidity of the prior AfDs. People can and are notable for singular events in their lives. If she just fell and was hurt, no big deal. Lots of cheerleaders fall. Injuries are commonplace. What made this person notable was the fact that she continued to perform her cheerleading duties from the stretcher. THAT is what drew all the media attention. That is what made her notable. Not her fall. Much less the fact that her fall caused a nation-wide temporary suspension of similar moves is plenty enough on its own to make it notable. MSJapan has made no convincing argument that this person is any less notable now than she was at the time of the event. How many AfDs does this article have to endure? Enough is enough already. --Durin 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or possible merge to cheerleading. Subject fails the 100-year-test pretty clearly. Punkmorten 20:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. I agree and disagree with the first and third comments. Rodney King is an excellent example of a bio to keep despite the fact there is little info about him as a person. I do think that notability can have a shelf life, although I think it's more on the order of 5 to 10 years than six months. On the other hand, clearly every person who is mentioned by name by major news media due to an accident does not pass the notability test. If this article passes into the realm of notability it is due only to the novelty of her injury. I don't think this is a good practice since Wikipedia is not Fark.com/AFHV Antonrojo 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets following from WP:BIO.

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)

"100 year test" is not reason for exclusion. -Nv8200p talk 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Punkmorten. The more time that passes, the less notable this person becomes... Valrith 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per all above, and as a protest against people renominating articles until they get the outcome they want. Jcuk 21:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per previous discussions. Catchpole 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not really against renomination, but perhaps it would be a good idea to put a time limit before an article can be renominated again. I agree with Valrith that as more time passes, the less notable this person becomes. But still, it passes WP:BIO and deserves to stay at the moment. Perhaps one day, things may change. Zephyr2k 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we could nominate it for deletion 100 years from now :) Punkmorten 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if the editors are paying attention, it'll be retained. People do not "lose" encyclopaedic value. Good today, good forever. This isn't Wikinews. WilyD 11:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep holding my nose. For now, she's got just as much reason for an article as Paris Hilton did a few years ago. If Yamaoka gets her own reality show next week, or becomes a cheerleading reform advocate, or something more enduring than falling off a pyramid, she'll be in for good. If she disappears, this is a shoo-in for a renomination in a year or so (don't need to wait 100...). --ishu 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much as I am inclined to delete as never likely to pass the 20 year test, it does seem to be worthy of keeping at least a year longer per Ishu. If it were not for the AACCA recommendations, I would vote delete without hesitation. Ohconfucius 03:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BIO, as several detail above. I stumbled onto this vote when I was looking up something similary fatouous that had been in the news, and Wikipedia is where I turned to get more info, because it is encyclopedic (i.e., comprehensive). Xsmith 00:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Shortly after the fall, The American Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators declared a temporary ban on basket tosses and 2 1/2 high pyramids (the same type of stunt Yamaoka was involved in that precipitated her fall). This temporary ban was to extend for the rest of the season for all cheerleading events, including the NCAA tourney. See [1]. Following AACCA's July meeting on updating safety rules, they issued a press release modifying the rules regarding these same types of stunts requiring the presence of mats if on a hard surface and may only be done during half time or following a game. See press release in MS-Word format. Thus, MSJapan's assertion that there were no repercussions from the event is incorrect. Regardless, the larger reason for Yamaoka's fame is not the fall; plenty of cheerleaders fall. The reason for her fame is her actions after the fall, in continuing to cheer when strapped to a stretcher. That's what prompted all the press coverage, appearance on media outlets, call from the President of the United States, etc., not the fall. --Durin 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment:I still frankly think that too much stock is being put in certain events - for example, I know someone who was personally at a Presidential bill signing, made the local news as a result, and received numerous phone calls from the President at the time. They don't have a WP article, nor do they deserve one. It also concerns me that available information was not added to the article in a timely fashion. If the meeting took place in July (it was stated as April in the article, and that meeting not having occurred yet was a key reason AfD #2 did not pass), why did it take until AfD #3 in September to find and add the relevant information, thus undermining this AfD as well? How can someone be notable enough for WP when the article doesn't even have a DOB for her (which is because it wasn't mentioned in the whopping three days of media coverage)? How notable can she be when no substantial changes have been made to the article since a week after the accident? While I suppose at this point there is no reason to continue with the AfD, these are questions that I think really need to be considered when thinking about the appropriateness of this article for WP. MSJapan 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We do not base deletion policy on whether or not all available information is added in a timely fashion. It simply isn't a criteria. Not having a date of birth is also not a criteria for deletion, and not a criteria for determining notability either. We don't have birth dates for Ptolemy and Pythagoras either, but we're not about to delete those articles on that basis. The issues you raise here have no bearing on how notable she is. The issues you raise have to do with the completeness of the article. So long as an article isn't a sub-stub, we don't delete it on any basis of completeness of an article. --Durin 18:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable. Outcome of rules debate may result in a viable article subject to appropriate title and referencing.ALR 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nothing has changed since the last two nominations to make this person less notable than before as already said. RFerreira 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 14:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nationwide news is always notable. bbx 15:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is the third time this same user has tried to delete this article. Seano1 19:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though this article could stand some fixing up, it does add value to Wikipedia. --Kamoranakrre T. Eyaelitenan 06:22, 11 September 2006 (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.