Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Dobbs

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. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Dobbs

Non-notable 15 year old figure skater, fails WP:ATHLETE by virtue of never appearing even in senior nationals. Ravenswing 16:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep as passing WP:GNG with this. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind citing some specific reliable sources that are, as WP:GNG states, "... published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject?" That's just the top page of a Google search. Ravenswing 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to provide reliable non-trivial sources. The sources linked to by the google search above are trivial at best. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE as mentioned above as well. -Djsasso (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails to meet WP:ATHLETE Masterhatch (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed myself from this discussion as the nom has made it clear that it is impossible for a gifted minor to ever gain notability in their sport. This Afd is closed already. Discussion is unaccepted and unneccessary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is certainly happy to make clear that whether a gifted minor achieves notability or not in novice competitions has nothing to do with WP:ATHLETE. An athlete can pass WP:BIO in one of two ways: qualify under the general notability criterion (which this subject does not) or qualify under the specific criteria of WP:ATHLETE, which requires nothing other than having competed professionally or at the highest level of amateur sport (which this subject has not). You have been asked for specifics to back up your assertions of notability in several of these skating AfDs. You have failed to provide a single one in any of them. Demonstrably, one of the governing philosophies of WP:ATHLETE is that no level of competition below the "highest level" stated in the black-letter guideline can be considered notable, however well a particular athlete might do in those lower levels. Ravenswing 04:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No... as I have never spoken toward WP:Athlete and have been specifiacally told by the nom that my partcipation in these discussions is a "waste of time". ~~The nom seems to have already made up his mind that Amanda Dobbs does not meet WP:GNG, and so then must have already decided~~ However, can it be assumed that continued coverage of her in "Amanda is the only Junior level competitor from the US to be sent twice to the Junior Grand Prix", "Olympics or bust", "Junior Grand Prix (JGP) Mexico results", "Intermediate Dance and Pairs Skate for Gold at U.S. Junior Championships", "U.S. skaters score three golds at JGP Mexico", "U.S. Wins Three Gold Medals, One Silver at JGP Mexico", "Ralph, Hill and Witkowski in medal contention", et al do not constitute notability through WP:BIO. I never claimed she met WP:Athlete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Let me reiterate some of the elements of WP:GNG for you:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources," including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large.
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion.

So let me go down that list of links for you. Dobbs' skating club's website is not an "independent" source. An online hometown weekly's website is not often held to be a reliable source. A skating website's list of winners isn't "significant coverage." www.usfigureskating.org is probably reliable, and when it talks about Dobbs at length a lot more than a mere "Rounding out the medalists were Danielle Seitz and Brandon Moore (Indiana World Skating Academy), and Amanda Dobbs (Peninsula SC) and Christopher Trefil (St. Moritz ISC), who placed third and fourth, respectively," we'll talk. icenetwork.com is a "reliable" source? Finally, I believe Slam sports is a reliable source, but once again, the reference is trivial: "In women's singles, Americans Amanda Dobbs (50.46) and Alexe Gilles (49.91) are in first and second respectively ..."

Finally, I have not said that your participation in these discussions is a waste of time, which would be very uncivil. I have said that throwing up waves of trivial links and Google search pages is a waste of time. We need significant, reliable sources discussing the subject at length. Match results do not qualify. Trivial mentions do not qualify. Google search pages filled with obvious links to other people do not qualify. What will qualify is something like that hometown weekly piece, only in the San Francisco Chronicle, an interview on network TV, something along those lines ... and nothing short of it. Ravenswing 16:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" The only criteria that could possibly warrant her being here is placing in the national Figure Skating Championship, and 5th place isn't really placing at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.61.234 (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has just qualified for the JGPF. Can someone please give me a list of all the figure skaters who have just been nominated for deletion, and also please list them at WP:FIGURE? I've been off wiki for a few days and I come back and see a list of AFDs. Can they please be listed together if they all have the same reason for deletion? Thanks. Kolindigo (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Junior competition is not the "highest level of amateur sport" and thus does not meet WP:ATHLETE; when she competed at senior nationals (and only when she does), then she'll be notable. As far as a bundled AfD goes, it's inappropriate. There's no particular thread linking them, beyond that they're figure skaters who have not yet competed at the senior level, and I preferred to list them separately. Ravenswing 04:09, 11 October 2008 (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.