Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Jenneke

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Even after throwing out the numerous comments with no basis in Wikipedia policy there still appears to be a consensus that this material is appropriate for Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Jenneke

edit


Michelle Jenneke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A youth athlete who became the subject of a recent viral video. Her notability (WP:BIO) is questionable. Because she fails the WP:NTRACK requirements as far as I can tell, any notability could only derive from the media coverage dedicated to the video of her. But that appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOTNEWS. Moreover, judging from the Google news results, the coverage tends to be highly superficial, often limited to variations on the theme of "hey, look at this sexy athlete wiggling her hips", and contains very little coverage of Jenneke as a person - i.e., very little material that would be useful for writing a biography. That said, if a contributor can unearth any substantial coverage of her in non-tabloid sources, I'd have no problem with keeping the article.  Sandstein  12:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Her athletic record alone would almost certainly be enough to establish notability, but the viral video definitely pushes it over the top. You reference WP:NTRACK, which gives a list of criteria where notability is presumed. But even if she does not meet any of those specific criteria, that does not necessarily mean she is not notable as an athlete.
And it looks to me like she does in fact meet criteria number 7: "Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body". Her profile on the Australian Young Olympic Team website states that she broke "the Australian record at the 2010 Australian Championships in the 4x100m relay", which would be a continental record.
And she also has a silver medal from the Youth Olympic Games. That, combined with her continental record, should be more than enough to establish her notability as an athlete. The viral video is just icing on the notability cake. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Rreagan007's argument. Also, I don't believe that WP:ONEEVENT applies, assuming the "one event" is the video of her warming up for a race that has received a lot of media attention. The first instance of the video, from what I can find, appears on June 15th (my search shows its absence before then), the day of the race. There's no significant coverage of her before then (see here). While the one event may have lead to more attention, she's also being covered for her hurdling. It can be argued that the one event lead to more attention but it's not the only thing she's covered for. You could call it the Kim-Kardashian-clause of WP:ONEEVENT. OlYeller21Talktome 17:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that the reference that we have found regarding her world record may be in err. Did she set a world record then subsiquentally not win the gold in that event? I understand this is possible given that she may have set the record in a hear then lost in the final but this may need more attention. OlYeller21Talktome 13:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be any error. The page says she broke the record in the in the 4x100m relay at the 2010 Australian Championships and also that she placed 1st in that same event at the 2010 Australian Championships. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is rather useless for this discussion. "she is so freaking hot" isn't part of an inclusion guideline and WP:HARMLESS applies to the rest. OlYeller21Talktome 03:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 83.43.21.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about point 7 as mentioned above? OlYeller21Talktome 02:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point 7 refers specifically to "world junior records, world youth bests" so it is not clear that it extends to continental junior records. WWGB (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's somewhat vague and a matter of interpretation, but when you look at that record in combination with the silver olympic medal I think it's enough to meet notability requirements for athletics. Plus you have the viral video with worldwide media attention on top of that that also adds to her notability. You have to look at the totality of the situation here. I will also note that 6 other language Wikipedias also now have biography articles on her. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But if she is considered an Olympian then she fails WP:NOLYMPICS. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does she fail that? It starts with "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games". So she passes WP:NOLYMPICS Dream Focus 07:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She competed in none of those competitions. WWGB (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its run by the International Olympic Committee, in the same was as the regular Olympics. Same thing. Athletes from around the world compete, ample media attention, notable achievement, so no reason not to consider this notable enough to count in the same way as the regular Olympics. Dream Focus 07:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that's your opinion, not what the guideline WP:NOLYMPICS states. WWGB (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Youth_Olympics Dream Focus 07:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Justification usually goes well with a !vote in discussion. Especially from an editor whose 57th and last edit was to this AfD, their first AfD. OlYeller21Talktome 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google news archive search shows that she has received coverage years before the viral video, for her athletic accomplishments, winning a silver medal in a notable sporting event, the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, etc. Dream Focus 07:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Rreagans arguments. No doubt for me that she passes the criterias needed for inclusion in Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:HOTTIE. Seriously, she is so close on a couple of the WP:NTRACK requirements, the silver at the youth olympics plus a bronze at the nationals championships this year (results) coupled with the viral video thing, is enough for me. The-Pope (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Pending the consensus determining the notability of the Youth Olympics that Dream Focus started. If the track events are determined to not be notable enough to confer notability to this athelete, then the viral video is not enough to show any lasting notability of the individual. However, as I largely suspect the track events she medaled in will be determined to be notable, I am strongly leaning towards Keep. Rorshacma (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:HOTTIE, WP:NTRACK etc causa sui (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She doesn't fit prong 4 any of WP:NTRACK this guideline specifically requires a gold medal at the youth Olympics. The consensus from the NSPORTS community was that the Youth olympics have only occurred for a short period of time (once I think?) so we don't know how much coverage results from that competition. From some research we found that gold medals definitely lead to notable coverage but we were split on looser restrictions (likely after several youth olympics this requirement will be lessened to something like medalled, but for now its gold). I'm not sure prong 7 was meant to include relays, but as it is currently written she certainly passes it. However, thats not the reason I chose keep. She clearly has notable coverage that satisfies GNG for her hurdling, whether this resulted from her viral video is irrelevant, there is coverage of multiple hurdling events, so this does not fall under WP:ONEEVENT --MATThematical (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - WP:GNG trumps WP:NTRACK and given all the attention she has received lately from plenty of different reliable sources, she easily passes the notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia. TonyStarks (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She's an athlete with a notable track record as well as global name recognition. It's far too early to be calling for deletion. Kegill (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let Wikipedia grow with articles about everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.150.17.54 (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 2.150.17.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Michelle Jenneke is a good athlete for Australia and very well could represent at upcoming olympic events, even without the recent fame the page is justified. Much lesser athletes have Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.145.243 (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 121.223.145.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I heard about the viral video from my wife (a former athlete and dancer who likes the idea of a warmup being fun rather than robotic) and came to Wikipedia as my first source to find out about her. I suspect that many others have done / will do the same. She is - at least currently - a person of interest. I don't know about the "rules" for inclusion, but I think this article about her serves the public good (again, at least at this time). Seems to me a reasonable metric for continued inclusion would be how many people use Wikipedia to learn about her. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it is a pretty retarded crowd-surfing argument? Sheer numbers of visitors do not establish notability, otherwise every yahoo on youtube would be article-worthy.
  • "Retarded crowd-surfing argument" - Looking past the unneeded vulgarity, I don't really know how to respond to that other than I have no idea what it meant but I assume you're not in favor of the argument. I completely agree that YouTube hits mean nothing here and have never agreed with a "hits" argument. I !voted keep because of reasons that reflect my interpretation of WP:NTRACK and that I believe that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here (see reasoning above). Outside of that argument, it seems we've found a grey area where we've filled a hole. People are looking for information and find it here, 20,000 times per day. It's fundamentally different than a WP:GHITS or WP:SUPPORT. I've never made an WP:IAR argument in an AfD but this seems like it's probably a case to do that but I may change my mind if someone brings a coherent argument to the discussion. OlYeller21Talktome 14:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today's featured article makes another interesting contrast. That's another athlete, Nick Adenhart. That article only averages about 200 readers per day - just 1% of the article in question. Jimmy Wales' State of the Wiki address points the way, "emphasizing the need to "rexamine our priorities" and cover all topics, even if they are pure pop culture, because if the Wikimedia movement does not cover it, the people will go somewhere else." Warden (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Being famous for being attractive in a viral video isn't sufficient for article inclusion...this is one of those times where you look beyond the bean-counting of sources and delve into what they are actually saying. This stuff happens all the time, and it brings to mind an embarrassing vote from my youthful and carefree self; to my shame, I voted "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination). This is no different than that, an article with thankfully did not go my way. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did she win any Youth Olympic medals or hold any continental records? Jenneke has competed at the highest levels of junior athletics and her athletic accomplishments alone are enough to make her notable. Stokke was merely a talented high school athlete who never competed at the world class level. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Junior records are not on par with our notability guidelines. The only reason we're here is because a video of cute girl working out appeals to a nation of basement-dwelling heterosexual males, the stuff about minor awards is a weak and vain attempt to justify an article for what amounts to a youtube pinup girl. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better read point 7 of WP:NTRACK. It specifically states that world and continental junior records are a way to establish notability. Can we assume that the only reason you're here, citing your lack of knowledge of notability guidelines is that you don't like the video? I couldn't care if she's the sexiest woman alive or some sort of troll-human hybrid but you assumption is an assumption of bad faith, in my opinion. OlYeller21Talktome 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't lecture me on guidelines, kiddo. They are called GUIDElines for a reason; they are not mandatory and can be set aside if there is a compelling reason. In this case, the compelling reason is that 99% of this woman's notability stems from the aforementioned undersexed males dribbling over her perceived sexy video upload, and scraping up a single part of a single sub-notability guide to keep a viral video star is not what an encyclopedia should be in the business of doing. Her "fame", as it is, is squarely in WP:BLP1E territory, to which WP:NTRACK should be set aside. Tarc (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That argument makes no sense. You are saying that you want to set aside the athletics guidelines that say she is notable because there has been another event that has happened that makes her even more notable. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, yes. Guidelines can be and are set aside if there are greater concerns, e.g. BLP1E trumps the general notability guide, where even though a person appears in multiple reliable sources, they aren't worthy of an article if the coverage is only for one event. Or the much-reviled WP:PORNBIO, where for the longest time the wording covered group scene awards. Many editors found this to be ridiculous and set it aside when holding AfDs. It is called "editorial discretion", something that needs to be more utilized around here. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kiddo, eh? Your counterargument wasn't that we should set our guidelines aside, you counterargument was that the argument was "not up to par" with our guidelines when that's very specifically not the case. Is it time to change your argument because you felt attacked? Now that your argument is that we should ignore a guildeline, why should we? Who's the "newbie" from your edit summary? I'm guessing it's not me. OlYeller21Talktome 17:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 67.182.249.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - worthy of inclusion on the basis of many news articles mentioning her etc Silent Billy (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See below There are three possible arguments for keeping this article: the closeness to meeting the athletes guideline, the coverage of popular viral content, and the GNG. Taking them in turn, First. The athletics guideline is already so liberal that it would be the height of folly to stretch to further--it is disproportionate to the coverage of WP in almost all other fields. We have always interpreted the top levels as the top adult international levels, and essentially all articles based on the notability of Junior champions that have come here have been rejected. If we were to modify this, it would presumably include first the winner of international junior championships. She is not one of them: the international record is a 2nd place; only her national record has first place finishes. This is therefore not a good case for expanding the guideline. I note the use in some of the arguments as "up and coming" and its synonyms. We have always interpreted such phrases as meaning Not yet notable. WP is for those subject which have already become notable, not the immensely greater number who might be someday. We all might. Second our coverage of viral video sensations has been very restrained. I don't think the evidence shown the world wide coverage in major news publications that we have normally wanted. I am especially reluctant to accept viral videos as worth coverage because of their sexiness, as seems to be the basis here. Not that I do not appreciate sexy videos. But using this as a basis comes much too close to Tabloid--and, yes, to Hottie. It is with considerations like this we are most likely to stray--an encyclopedia is a work of reference judged by rational criteria, not by emotions. Even the most popular of emotions. Third It is articles like this which shows why we might as well abandon the GNG. Sure there are references, but the question is the nature of the references and whether they support encyclopedic content. Nobody would have thought of writing a article here on the athletics accomplishments alone, and the timing of the edit history shows that nobody did so. The references would not justify it--the ones prior to the video are all of them either incidental mentions or excessively local, where home town athletes are indiscriminately hyped. The video is not encyclopedic content unless substantial works have been written about it over time--the coverage fails WP:News and the multiple other criteria used to rule out the nonsense produced by thoughtless use of counting alone.
It's getting more common than it used to be to find me and Tarc on the same side of an AfD discussion. I think that's because we both share an interest in actual notability , not on reference counting. He normally interprets it much more narrowly than I do, but this is outside even my limits. And I had a similar experience to what he shares--In my first year here i did in fact depend articles like this--and I sometimes did defend them on reference counting alone. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't one of those junior football/soccer teams which no one takes seriously. This is the Youth Olympics run by the international Olympic committee. That is something. And winning 2nd place at an Olympic event is still notable. You shouldn't try to delete something because you don't like "sexy videos". Many people came to Wikipedia to find out information about this person, who gets ample news coverage. Michelle_Jenneke has been viewed 146,977 times in the last 30 days. Don't be a hater. Wikipedia covers all notable topics, not just thousand year old dead kings no one ever reads about. Dream Focus 03:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page views are the classic non-argument. there are many things fror which there will be page views that are irrelevant to an encyclopedia. We are not the entire web.
  • In support of the Youth Olympics, she had Australian coverage for that specifically dedicated to her, and her performance was mentioned in a Jamaican and a USA based news source. The sexy video part is a small component. Beyond that, timing of article creation is largely irrelevant. --LauraHale (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a small component, in the article, but the major factor in about half the arguments here. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any one of the 3 arguments for keeping the article that DGG lists could be enough alone to justify keeping this article, but when all 3 are taken together the justification for keeping this article is overwhelming. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her athletics record as a Junior satisfies WP:NTRACK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint91 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see it almost like a trademark. Ozzie smith was famous for somersaulting onto the baseball field and jenneke now has several videos of her warmups going around. I think when you wonder about notability here just consider the worldwide affect and how many girls are going to start dancing in their own warmups or inspire other athletes to be more outgoing. Its no coincidence the US womens swim team just realized a video of themselves lip synching "call me maybe". I just think influence on her peers should
  • Keep, open and shut case, meets criteria #7 of WP:NTRACK and also clearly meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Undecided I've re-read the article and the discussion. I'm not as sure as I was that it represents an unwarranted extension of our practices for athletes. I continue to have strong doubts about the aspect of notability as an internet phenomenon. I continue to have strong doubts about the encyclopedic nature of the actual interest in the article. But it is not unreasonable that when even this sort of internet coverage has a basis in the real career of a person, that we cover that career, DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lankiveil. Meets NTRACK, meets GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For two reasons: 1) She is a legitimate world class athlete (silver medal at Junior Olympics) and 2) Why not? I was never before even aware items were brought up for wholesale deletion. Perhaps (probably) this is an argument for a different forum, but I just cannot see why any item would ever be deleted wholesale from the Wikipedia site. Is Wikipedia running out of server space? While editing (or even locking) an entry to ensure some semblance of accuracy is maintained is a regrettable necessity, why ever eliminate an entry completely? Just by the facts someone goes to the trouble to create it, others take the time to contribute to it, and (certainly in this case) a massive debate is created on the appropriateness of its inclusion, hasn't it justified its relevancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.210.179 (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Criteria #7 of WP:NTRACK states, "Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body." She took first place in the 4x100m medley relay at the 2010 Australian Junior Championships, setting an Australian record. Depending on your definition of continent, that alone would satisfy the criteria. Even if that does not meet your definition, that is still holding a sports record in a large country. Now, I realize that criteria #4 of WP:NTRACK states, "Has won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships or Youth World Championships." However, she did win silver. That is still quite notable on its own, and combined with the previous comment, should probably be justification enough. And, as per Dream Focus, there does appear to be significant interest in her; we're here to provide the world with information. If that is the information they are seeking, should we not provide them with it? --~ScholarlyBreeze~ 21:04, 29 July 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Jenneke&oldid=1142284470"