Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayli Barker

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kayli Barker

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

Non-notable racing driver that has competed only at the local level. This driver clearly fails WP:NSPORT and WP:NMOTORSPORT. However, she has gained a small amount of local media attention by being the first female to win a track championship at a NASCAR sanctioned track, but I do not feel that that is enough to meet WP:GNG. Drdisque (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This driver does meet WP:GNG. She has received a significant amount of media coverage and, while it is mostly local media coverage, this is Las Vegas we're talking about. And while Las Vegas is the 28th largest city in America, these papers don't just serve Las Vegas; they serve the entire Las Vegas Valley (so Las Vegas, Henderson and unincorporated Clark County). You can get a good estimate of that population from this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_County,_Nevada. The Las Vegas Valley isn't the only group that makes up Clark County, but it's, by far, the majority. Additionally, she was covered in a national teen magazine, Justine Magazine (http://www.justinemagazine.com/content/decjan-14-issue), in their December/January issue. However, they don't have the articles from that issue posted online; they are only in the print version. User: Rotherme
~~Weak delete~~ Change to Keep. Based on her age (16) she is still a minor and erring on the side of caution (Wikipedia articles are public sounding boards for good and bad). If Barker will be notable she has an entire lifetime to get there. Unless some significant amount of national sourcing appears. If she continues with her successes no doubt she will be notable soon enough. -- GreenC 21:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's gained more than a small amount of local media attention, and [1] is most certainly not local coverage. Nor are [2] or [3] or [4]. [5] A Nevada-wide source covered her as well. I wouldn't say she smashes GNG, but she meets it, and I'm sensing a strong lack of WP:BEFORE here from the nominator and GreenC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Winning a track championship at the track's third level of competition does not confer any form of notability if the competitor is male, female, white, black, or a green multi-tentacled asexual blobby thing from Mars. A spurt of "hey this can get us readers/viewers" news reports on a non-notable event doesn't add up to notability. (I'll also note the article is misleading in that "the first female champion of one of the three NASCAR classes" implies one of the national touring series which is absolutely not the case). If she had won the overall track championship she might have a claim to notability, but as it is she's no more notable than the winner of a "powder puff" track championship (of which there have been many female champions (seeing as "powder puff", as its name implies, is a "ladies' division") - all just as much "NASCAR champions" as Barker. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She won a race in a low level racing series at her local race track. So have thousands of other people at her age. "Faces in the Crowd" doesn't convince me since it's a crystal ball type of report. This article is too soon. There aren't even articles about the top local series Super Late Model local track champions - except if they won that series' national championship. Let her appear in one of the big 3 NASCAR series (Sprint Cup, Nationwide, or Camping World Truck Series) or a top notch touring series like ARCA, then she should have an article. Bushranger is right about the weasel statement of the big 3 series. Royal broil 01:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. There a numerous articles in major publications covering her so she passes the general notability guideline. That she is young or whether the races she has competed in are major is not especially relevant. She's significant per being deemed significant by the reliable independent sources that Wikipedia's coverage is based upon. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The coverage of her in non-local coverage that I listed comes from August 2013 and September 2012, whilst the Nevada source comes from November/December 2013. That's sustained coverage, and, although the article is flawed, people are forgetting that AfD is not cleanup, and are making insistences that simply don't line up with policy. She meets GNG, therefore she is notable, regardless of whatever level she is racing at. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see additional sources have been provided. I still firmly believe this is WP:TOOSOON, but I can't disagree that the letter of GNG is met here if not the spirit, so I've struck my delete !vote (but without changing to keep). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that, particularly as she doesn't have such an enormous amount of coverage that notability is rock solid. Women drivers are the in-thing for coverage at the moment, that's hard to dispute. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lukeno94 has found some quite notable reliable sources that prove she is clearly notable. One said she was "the youngest female (15 years, 24 days) to win a NASCAR-sanctioned main event". Nascar Digest did a spotlight all about her. Other coverage as well. Dream Focus 21:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Article subject notable. I believe over time this article would grow as the individual is already notable with a growing career. Female athletes in this particular industry are news worthy and encyclopedic worthy because they are rare which makes them notable. The sources are creditable. The article could use some cleaning up. it's a good start DIZwikwiki (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage is circumstantial and does not appear to meet notability criteria. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the coverage, or WP:GNG? Whether a source is "circumstantial" is utterly irrelevant, it's routineness that matters. Motor Racing Digest did a long, in-depth piece on her; that's not routine in the slightest, and nor is it circumstantial to her race victory; to claim that shows you've not read the source at all. The Nevada Magazine source could be claimed to be "circumstantial", but it goes a long way beyond "local girl did good", as it covers her schooling history, and some of her prior history as well. That's enough right there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: This has attracted more discussion than a typical relist, but I still don't see a clear consensus here. I could close this as no consensus, but I'm going to throw it back in the hopes that a few more days of discussion may clarify things.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 5 keep votes, 2 delete votes, 1 comment (which can be interpreted as a keep vote anyway). One delete vote doesn't have any basis in policy, the other does. How the hell is this "no consensus", RoySmith? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And beyond that, the discussion went stale 4 days ago, one person who initially voted delete struck their vote, and another changed to keep. This is a pretty clear "keep" consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a meta-discussion, so I responded on User talk:Lukeno94. RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The discussion should be here, not moved about elsewhere. I'd say consensus is rather clear in favor of "keep". There is enough participation here than an administrator can close it, there no reason to relist it. A random person can't just decide an AFD get relisted without a valid reason. Dream Focus 16:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there was a significant article, I believe this will likely end up falling into WP:ONEEVENT. Her accomplishment is INCREDIBLY minor on the grand scale of auto racing. It's the equivalent to winning a high school tournament. Lots of High School athletes who are state champions in individual sports have articles written on them, but that doesn't make them notable. The fact that she has a good publicist that was able to get some non-routine coverage of her accomplishment does not substantially enhance the importance of said accomplishment. I feel that if this article does survive AFD, it will be right back here in a year or two as ONEEVENT will be quite clear at that point when there will be no significant ongoing coverage. -Drdisque (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote myself; "The coverage of her in non-local coverage that I listed comes from August 2013 and September 2012, whilst the Nevada source comes from November/December 2013." ONEEVENT categorically does not apply. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existence of publicity does not overcome the fact that the accomplishment is not notable. The GNG is very clear that meeting it does not require us to make an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is that policy based? Where does it say that the accomplishment has to be notable for an article to exist? Whilst the specific race she won isn't notable, the fact that she's the first female to win a NASCAR package event is most definitely notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:I don't like it. The guidelines are useless if you can just ignore them whenever you feel like it. Some exceptions may exist at times, but this isn't one of them. Doesn't being "the youngest female to win a NASCAR-sanctioned main event" make her notable? Dream Focus 04:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Her "accomplishment" is a very minor local one. "NASCAR-sanctioned" doesn't confer any notability. -Drdisque (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I don't think this crosses the bar, the argument that the accomplishment is not notable utterly fails to hold water. We don't value-judge that somebody who passes WP:GNG shouldn't have an article for "not accomplishing something notable". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:00, 2 February 2014 (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.

Kayli Barker

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.