Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capri Everitt

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. Opinions differed, but the consensus seems to be that there is enogh sourcing here to establish notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capri Everitt[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Child Guinness record-holder, and worthy fund-raiser etc, but really nothing encyclopedic. PamD 16:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is not encyclopedic and was possibly started by the person who the article is about (a big cause for concern). Unless it is improved upon, it probably needs to be deleted. Wpgbrown (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be quite a few news stories with significant coverage about this subject including international coverage as well as Canada, US, India, Ireland and others available. I added a cross section of references to the article, including one titled, 16 Girls Who Changed The World". She was #9. This article passes WP:GNG and should be kept and expanded. Z359q (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as many sources are out there, so GNG is established. (As a general rule I think that parents who allow their children to become media personalities are creepy.)104.163.158.37 (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Times of India and HuffPost have featured plus achievement is significant. Would pass gng. Globe2trotter (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. entirely promotional, to the extent that I have listed it for G11, to see if another admin agrees with me. Huff Post is useless as a source for notability , and the same is true for all Indian newspapers if the articles have anything to do with entertainment. The rest of the matrerial is mentions and PR. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. I was not convinced till I saw the ToI article was about a 13 yo boy. It has nothing to do with the subject of this page. This page is just a puff piece w/o notability.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several sources have been added to the article since the last argument. Relisting to give time for evaluation of these sources, as DGG had done with the previous.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can we please delete this promotional biography about a non-notable person? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep. I went through the references in the article, and she passes WP:GNG. The article looks promotional, but that is a matter for WP:SOFIXIT. Ross-c (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article and added more citations. This person easily passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in reliable, secondary sources. Additionally, the Guinness award would likely pass WP:ANYBIO for "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." Given all the coverage of her international music tour, she also passes WP:NMUSIC for "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" and "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" and "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network" (as her performances were televised in many countries). Lonehexagon (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the award: I personally do not believe that a "Guiness World Record" is a significant award for honor. Getting a "Guiness World Record" does not require having done anything honorful, it just requires doing something as weird or silly as possible so that you're the only person in the world to have done this thing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia is to document what people find notable, as measured by significant coverage in secondary, independent, reliable sources. It indicates notability to receive public recognition for completing something no one else can do, then having your name and information published in a popular, international book. Additionally, I gave two other reasons I think she's notable enough to pass the guidelines, even if you believe the Guinness World Record does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Her record took nine months to complete, and was followed from beginning to end. She easily passes WP:GNG for significant coverage, and WP:NMUSIC for her music tour that received extensive coverage in multiple countries. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with emphasis. Several dedicated articles in major news outlets, which are rock sold reliable sources. IMLTHO, nothing more need be said. Tapered (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, keep. My disagreement with the notability of a Guinness World Record award, and the promotional nature of the article, are not sufficient as arguments against notability here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree:, if you are changing your !vote, would you please strike your previous one? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I thought that this is probably an archived section of the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2018 (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.