Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Dekker

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 delete. If sources are found so that the topic doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS, the article may be recreated to focus on the event. However, as it stands, consensus is that the article fails BLP1E. NW (Talk) 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Dekker[edit]

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

Proposing deletion par WP:BLP1E or WP:NTEMP. The notability in the article is based upon a wish to become the youngest solo round the world sailor - but no actual attempt took place due to child protection interfering. Most of this article is based upon a news burst for an event that never took place. I would say this is a single event with no lasting notability. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NTEMP, this might have been appropriate for WikiNews, but no lasting notability. Huon (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However, the finding about whether she will stay with her family (and presumably make the circumnavigation attempt) will be announced on the 26th. If she makes an attempt she's probably notable, if she doesn't then this is a significant BLP concern. I think, though, it is better to err on the side of deleting for now and recreating if things change in the future. - Bilby (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps reassess in six months time. The article needs to be updated. She was on New Zealand television news last night or the night before as starting her solo circumnavigation, despite colliding with a large ship on a test run.(BBC).-gadfium 05:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's Jessica Watson that you're referring to - Laura Dekker was supposed to have left by now, but has been stopped by the authorities. The articles about Jessica tend to mention Laura as well, though. - 05:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Just as well I didn't try to update the article.-gadfium 06:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Delete. As per nom, WP:NTEMP. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The timing for this removal proposal is a bit odd. Her case will be re-evaluated shortly (max two weeks). It's extremely hard to asses probabilty of approval. But if she gets her approval she will probably set sail.--Hbijloo (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still argue that simply attempting to break a world record does not make one inherently notable. If im currently in the process of becoming the worlds oldest person, or write the world thickest book would that make me notable? Even if i receive an entire library of news coverage that would not make me notable for trying to break the record; at most the excessive amount of news coverage around it would be worth documenting.

We are currently speculating that she might break the world record, and if she does she will be notable. However we are NOT a news source that documents every single news report - just because the news agencies singled out one a single record attempt and covered it extensively doesn't mean we should. I see nothing in this case that makes it more historically notable then any other record attempt. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning would even make Jessica Watsons page eligible for deletion. But why argue about this. Wikipedia is so strict in it's policies. Just being a news item from timbutku to greenland can't possibly be enough to become worthy of having a page in the honorable Wikipedia. Fethry Duck. The safer way to go is dying while trying Gerry Roufs --Hbijloo (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fethry Duck: A cartoon character created in 1964 - even now he is still in publication in a magazine franchise that reached millions. I would say plenty of long lasting cultural influence, both past and present.

Gerry Roufs: Second place in the world championships well before dying, and disappeared and died during a notable event.

Laura Dekker: No achievement other then wide news coverage so far. Unless the court case provides a landmark victory or ruling, or unless she succeeds in sailing around the world, she is a one day fly. She sparked the debate about "Minority safety" but she is low profile in this story, as she is a mere example for debates sake.

Jessica watson is really the same as Laura, with the exception that she is at least sailing. She in NOT notable unless she sets the world record; Not only because that is "What the rules state" but simply because an encyclopedia's goal is to document historically important subjects. Sans all the news coverage, would Laura as a person be notable? Its not laura, but at most the event thats notable. That doesn't mean that both she and jessica don't deserve to be preserved, but the proper place should beWikinews, where they would be excellent subjects. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd qualify Fetrhy as a mediocre duck just doing his job. It's a bit silly to defend entries on secundary cartoon characters as more E as compared to a social and cultural phenomenon such as Laura Dekker. Your missing the fact that the controversy and not the athletic accomplishment is the reason for keeping her in.

It's blogs like this one that more than justify a page with some straight honest facts about her. Freedom fighter uses Laura as example--Hbijloo (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs don't qualify as reliable sources, and even for a blog the mention is little more then trivial coverage. In all due rights i would qualify the event as a Media circus, as the amount of coverage exceeds the true importance for the event. Break it down and you will get: "Record attempt by teen thwarted by authorities". par WP:BLP1E i would argue again that laura as a person (Thus in the biographical aspect) is not notable. I deem it arguable whether the event itself truly notable, or if the media coverage around it just causes it to look notable. At most we could consider documenting this as the "2009 Laura Dekker Incident", or perhaps the "2009 Laura Dekker Media Hype", though the latter is WP:OPINION.

We can debate the reasons why it is silly that Fethry Duck is deemed more notable then laura, but that is besides the point of this discussion. If the rules are flawed the rules should be changed, and not the execution of the rules. If you can demonstrate that laura is notable within the guidelines, and that this notability overrules the policies i states i will be more then happy to concede my point. Hence, no administrator would delete an article if it is clearly notable, no matter how much the votes are stacked against it. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that you qualify this event as a media circus should not decide whether or not an entry in Wikipedia is deleted. What's relevant to you is another persons bullshit. The deletion process is meant for garbage disposal, not to make Wikipedia fit your defenition of "not silly". "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." How can you argue that the events surrounding Laura Dekker do not fit this definition ??? "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources." But it even has ongoing coverage. CNN on Laura Dekker today --Hbijloo (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have quoted WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS several times now, and so far you did not refute any of the claims i made on the basis of these two guidelines; Thus I belief they are already sufficient to refute your WP:N quote which means im not going to repeat myself again - read back the comments if you wish. Second, i would also only be repeating myself if i mentioned that while the event may notable, laura as a person is definitely not. The link you added shows this perfectly: The debate is not about laura, but about the moral question if it is a good idea to let teens sail around the world without supervision. Laura, in all due rights, serves as little more then an example for a wider debate. See the WP:NOTNEWS quote: "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."

Separately i would very much prefer it if you didn't turn this into a personal attack. I am not attempting to "make Wikipedia fit my defenition of "not silly"", as im basing myself upon several guidelines. When i stated that we should not get into the topic as to why Fethery is deemed more notable then Laura, i said so because its a WP:WAX argument - Actually I was just repeating your own words as you said: "It's a bit silly to defend entries on secundary cartoon characters as more E". As for the Media Circus comment: I believe i made it quite clear it was an opinion, and not a reason for removal or even a discussion topic. As i stated before, the article should either be moved to a title reflecting it is an event and altered to display this, rather then being an autobiography, or it should be removed all together as a non notable event. But a biographic article is simply out of the question. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to illustrate the WP:BLP1E claim, does anyone still remember Alfie Patten? The case also provided weeks of coverage in the UK news papers. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move and rewrite or Delete Par my above argument. Either this article should be changed from a biography to an event and rewritten accordingly, or it should be removed alltogether. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:10, 25 October 2009 (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.