Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlin Upton

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Upton

[edit]
Caitlin Upton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article raises issues concerning Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. A DRV consensus has concluded that the question of policy compliance is reasonably in dispute. Per the recommendation of the ArbCom, the article will be restored, protected blank with history available, and listed at AfD. Suggestions for potential improving revisions to the article may be made during the AfD at the article's talk page. Deletion is on the table, as are other suggestions which make use of the sourced content. Xoloz 02:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - How are we supposed to discuss a blanked article with only a poorly written stub deep in the article history? This needs to be unprotected for editing and improvements immediately. --Oakshade 02:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question answered at your talk. Unprotection prior to AfD conclusion would violate the directive of ArbCom. Xoloz 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and immediate unprotect - An internationally very famous person. Passes WP:BIO and WP:N. Is the subject of multiple secondary sources from all over the world. Over 10 12 13 million Youtube views. In the top 20 of all time youtube views. The idea that someone who willingly competed in a nationally televised national beuty pageant and all the work that entails, is a private individual per WP:BLP is non-sensical. If this was a private citizen who made a fub at a local spelling bee and a parent videotaped her, that would be a BLP issue, certainly not this. And ironically, this person has received much more media coverage than Hilary Cruz, the actual Miss Teen USA! --Oakshade 02:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If anyone who gets their 15 minutes of fame is classed as notable then WP is going to have to upgrade its servers big time. She's a blonde who flubbed her responses at a cattle-market beauty pageant, so what? Notable != famous or notorious or infamous. So far she appears to be one of life's also-rans, an average ER intern is more notable than her. Famous for being famous. It's a slippery slope when bimbos get WP articles for being a bimbo on live TV.--WebHamster 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we aren't... storage space is so cheap compared to other things the foundation spends money on that it's not even a concern. We could have 10 million articles and not even use up the space already just sitting around empty. Saving space should never be a reason to delete an article... especially considering, short of a developer wiping the data manually, deleted articles still stay on the servers. The idea than an "ER intern" is more notable than someone who was viewed 15 million times and appeared in the national media many times... that's just wrong. --W.marsh 22:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also In regards to WebHamster's "Notable != famous.." comment: I agree, however, famous != only famous && not Notable automatically. I'd say that her 'fumble', as some call it, went far beyond stuttering or word-swapping. I can't go into an analysis of the entire response but my point is that the things the 'fumble' says about current pervading mentalities and the fact that such a mentality can place in the finals, then win third, for a title representing a large constituency of the nation is extremely notable. The winner of such a title spends the following year speaking to children, representing causes, etc. She is no longer simply a person but also, through her actions on a very public stage, become a symbol for a group of ideas that can be iconified under her example. --enot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.214.39 (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment- internet meme- I've seen it posted on lady's forums I frequent etc. If her performance has been/is soon discussed in reputable sources, then include.Merkinsmum 02:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the main list of MSCT winners. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No real question of notability, given the youtube stats or appearances of the video on late night talk shows. And I think it can be reliably sourced. For example: like this. I'm sure other documentation in the media can be found. --Bfigura (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep some level of notabilty as a Miss South Carolina Teen USA even before she competed at Miss Teen USA (although this in itself not enough to warrant notability) coupled wtih the extaordinary media coverage (inlcuding international press) of her gaffe. There is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead that in relation to pageants ia number of barely-notable things can on the whole make a subject notable (that case involved a non-stage level winner who had won a number of local titles, and who was the first contestant to quit America's Next Top Model). PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add a disclaimer that I was the author of the original article at this page (perhaps any admins should also look at that version if possible) but that I "db-author"-ed it after an AFD resulted in the deletion of other Miss Teen USA 2007 contestant articles. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notable is not the same as famous, noteworthy is not the same as press worthy. She has achieved very little other than to make a fool of herself in front of millions. Famous for being famous is not notability. In a year's time no-one will even remember her.--WebHamster 12:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept I'm not sure what the appropriate title is. Her full name is "Lauren Caitlin Upton" but she usually goes by "Caitlin Upton" (as seen on the Miss South Carolina Teen USA website" and her nickname is actually "Caite". Only after the video came out was she more commonly referred to as "Lauren Caitlin Upton" (because the MUO releases things using their full name). I think "Caitlin Upton" would still be the most appropriate title. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per WP:NOT#NEWS - Yes, she got attention for her goof on the show, but is there really historic notability for that? I do not see it. Miss Teen <state> is not really an award worthy of conferring notability either. Either way, I just dont see historic notability Corpx 05:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because has multiple reliable sources. BLP1E is not an issue as she is a public figure. -- Y not? 06:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Currently, the issue is covered at Miss Teen USA 2007, where it is appropriate to cover this. Since there are no sources that give any information about her beyond where she placed in the pageant, other than about this one embarassing event, I don't think we have enough to sustain a biography. If someone wants to write an article about the meme/internet phenomenon, I think it would be premature at this point, but it should not be titled like a biography. Mangojuicetalk 13:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - This article deserves a redirect to the article about the event, where the incident is adequately mentioned. The person has no other notability and the article has already proven to be a target for vandals. Making this a protected redirect would be per precedent of similar youtube subjects. --After Midnight 0001 13:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like it or not, internet phenomenon type people who get many millions of views and cross over into appearances on various national media programs are the new notable... Wikipedia must adapt or run the risk of becoming obsolete to many of our readers. People come here for what we do have, no one comes here and says "Wow, they don't have an article on X, what a great encyclopedia!". At any rate, I don't think BLP deletion should apply to properly sourced articles on public people (voluntarily participating in a nationally televised competition where you're identified by name and so on... that just makes you public). Alternatively, redirect. As always the article should be editable during the AFD... that's always the best time to get it improved. I don't buy that an AFD box being up will make people more likely to insert libel or something... it will just mean there will be more eyes on the article to make sure it progresses correctly. --W.marsh 14:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Balance the harm done to the subject for a Wikipedia article that could remain online for years vs. the harm to readers of Wikipedia who don't have another page to go to (and throw in "harm" to Wikipedia's reputation for not having a page) and it's a no-brainer. We don't need to have an article just because we can have an article. Our coverage of the universe isn't seriously hurt in any way by not having an article. She, on the other hand, would be hurt simply because she said something dumb once in front of a camera. I think somehow Wikipedia readers will survive without an article on her. We should all be so lucky that our more embarassing moments aren't captured on video. If there were some compelling reason to put a check on our compassion for another human being, then we might need coverage (as we do with, say, Larry Craig). But we don't have to check our compassion at the door just because we're building an encyclopedia. Noroton 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and immediate unprotect - Over 15 million people have seen the youtube video of this girl--her name is becoming synonymous with inarticulate speech. In fact, I hadn't seen the video; a friend of mine referenced her when she was unable to properly articulate what she wanted to say to me. This goes to show that this young woman has entered the zeitgeist in a big way. --TallulahBelle 21:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then redirect to Miss Teen USA 2007 per Mangojuice. This will put her answer to the interview question into context, and thus avoid giving it undue weight, while still containing the information that people may be looking for. --Metropolitan90 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many people are also looking for more biographical information; background, previous work (she's a model appearing in national magazines [11]), future plans and detailed reaction of the attention, i.e. her Today Show appearance. This is far too much off-topic info for the Miss Teen USA 2007 article.--Oakshade 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a page with names of other contestants of the pageant or other winners of South Carolina. Unless she starts a prolific film/music career where she releases several Oscar/Grammy-nominated albums and becomes an icon of cool becoming more notable I don't see the need for her own article just to comment on her goofy answer. Thief12 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP applies to "essentially low profile" people which this person isn't, either before or after the "infamous moment." --Oakshade 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BLP applies to all living persons. And a participant in a beauty contest who did not win is still "low profile." The fact is that this incident is the only thing that makes her high profile. Undue weight would be given to this incident, and there's not enough facts available to write a biographical article about her. The incident itself is already covered at Miss Teen USA 2007. -- Kesh 16:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who willingly participated in a nationally televised national beauty contest, not to mention winning a state championship and willingly going on the Today Show is not "low profile". Biographical information such as background, schooling, other work (she is national magazine model) is all outside the incident and off-topic in the Miss Teen USA 2007 article. The term "essentially low profile" is actually in WP:BLP. The standards of accuracy and verifiability is what applies to all living persons.--Oakshade 16:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, her background, schooling, etc. does not belong in the Miss Teen USA article. It does not follow, however, that this means she gets a full article of her own. One appearance on the Today Show and participating in a beauty pageant do not confer notability. I've said my piece, and feel no further need to defend my decision. Make your own argument, Oakshade, as I have no interest in continuing this debate with you. -- Kesh 18:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than just participating in a national beauty pageant that made her notable (the youtube view count is now over 12 million). The point about participating in it and appearing on the Today Show was demonstrating this is not a private "low profile" person. --Oakshade 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She received enough media attention from this incident to make her notable Computerjoe's talk 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per me not understanding how it betters the sum of human knowledge to torture the poor individual ad infinitum for one ill-fated instant. Perhaps I simply lack your appetite for pain and humiliation, dear Inclusionists.
we're not here to better the sum of human knowledge, that would be WP:OR. we're here to document it. Pajluvah 20:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which would in turn better the sum of human knowledge would it not? Bit of a Catch 22 really :) --WebHamster 20:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote was missing the requisite procedural backing. As such, rather than argue from a false premise, I've excised it. I do hope that if this page will be kept, someone would keep an eye on it, as it's often these kinds of biographies that attract the attention of vandals. --Agamemnon2 12:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Repremand the ArbCom for imposing such a silly mandate. If they wanted to protect this page, fine, but don't both protect it and request the community to judge its fate at the same time. I appreciate the nom is merely adhering to their request, but I am under no such obligation, so I wish to put on record my disapproval of this kind of flip-flopping antics. Methinks the Committee should have picked one course to follow and stick with it, as opposed to what seems to me an extremely indecisive action. --Agamemnon2 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with your non-inclusion opinion, I agree wholeheartedly regarding having an AfD over a blanked and protected article. It's an inherent flaw in the AfD and will taint the final outcome, whatever that may be. --Oakshade 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom did not lay down this decision. They wrote a principle, and Xoloz used it to back his decision at the DRV. I myself said in the DRV we should focus the debate on inclusion, not process, but the debate ended up talking about process so much it couldn't be used to settle the issue, so Xoloz sent it back here, and I think it was a fine decision. Mangojuicetalk 19:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - are you asserting that there is a connection between Upton's long list of non sequiturs and tappen? --WebHamster 13:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no text in the article, other than the AfD notices. The issue is covered at Miss Teen USA 2007. - Brian Kendig 14:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text has been removed as a potential WP:BLP violation. Look through the history of the page to see its last version before it was blanked. -- Kesh 15:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the clarificiation. If this article text is a violation of WP:BLP - a serious enough violation that it can't even be displayed while it's being considered - then there's no article text to discuss; it's an empty article, and there's no point to keeping it around. If this text is not a violation of BLP, or if it's possible to create new article text which would not be a violation, then there's simply nothing to consider until such time as that text is restored or created. Either way, there's nothing non-procedural in the article right now. I don't see the point in weighing the fate of an article which is invalid in its current condition but might be valid in some future condition, especially when the topic is already adequately covered in another article. - Brian Kendig 15:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I have a couple of questions. The top of this page says, "This article raises issues concerning Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. A DRV consensus has concluded that the question of policy compliance is reasonably in dispute." In what way does the most recently deleted version of the article violate BLP, exactly? And would someone please post a link to the DRV discussion? Is the BLP issue over the existence of any article about Caitlin Upton at all, or over the specific wording of the text which had been in this article? While the issue is being discussed, could we redirect this article to Miss Teen USA 2007#Final_Competition, or copy the text from that section into this article? - Brian Kendig 15:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems an earlier version was an unreferenced attack page and that would've been rightfully a BLP issue. Unfortunately as this page is blanked and protected from any editing, nobody is allowed to write a proper non-attack version. There's a non-attack draft on the talk page that is completely different, almost totally referenced and balanced that would simmer any BLP concern. An earlier version by user:PageantUpdater (deleted before the attack version was created) is also balanced and was deleted simply for notability concerns, that being before all the celebrity this person acquired. --Oakshade 16:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I found the DRV discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 28. The only BLP concerns there are whether the person is notable enough under BLP1E; I didn't see any concern over the nature of the text in question. I find it odd that the response to concerns over notability under BLP1E is to blank and lock the article... what's going on here? - Brian Kendig 17:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Humanity? Noroton 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • A previous case decision by the Arbitration Committee was that articles that do not satisfy WP:BLP pose harm to the subject, usually by giving undue weight to a single event in a person's life. Blanking the article while a decision is made prevents this material from getting further attention by the general public, while editors can look into the history and determine if the article truly does violate BLP or not. The idea is that someone should not have a single mistake enshrined in a public encyclopedia if that's all they're notable for. -- Kesh 02:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you very much for the clarification - I can see some logic in that. Problem is, since the last version of the article before it was blanked and locked was an attack and a clear BLP violation, that means that the decision will clearly come down on the side of deleting this article, so what's this AfD debate for? Or if the arbitration committee wants to allow a properly-attributed article to take the place of what was previously here, then such an article has already been written and is waiting on the Talk page. What's the holdup? And who are we waiting on to make a decision so that progress can be made here? - Brian Kendig 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The holdup is deciding if it's even possible to write an article which satisfies WP:BLP. That's what this AfD decision hinges on: does she satisfy WP:N and, if so, is there enough biographical data to write an article about her that isn't simply an attack piece or which places undue weight on one embarrassing incident in her life? As for who we're waiting on, AfDs generally last about 5 days. At that point, an admin will look at this AfD, weigh the arguments and make a decision. If someone believes the decision was made on faulty premises or out of procedure (not simply that they disagree with the outcome), they can ask for deletion review. -- Kesh 14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it does seem mean that for one mistake, this young lady has it prominently written about her on wikip, rather than us let her hopefully put it behind her as a short-lived phase of mockery on the internet and the papers. If it's here for a while, perhaps consider deleting it after mocking her is no longer the latest meme.Merkinsmum 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have a clear policy that Wikipedia is not news. Subject has no notablity outside of a single news incident, hence it must be deleted as a consistent application of that policy. How did this get of DRV? Closing admins need to exercise better judgment in applying WP policy. Eusebeus 18:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because some people realize a rigid, automatic application of such a rule like that would be a terrible idea, otherwise we'd have to delete articles like Steve Bartman, John Hinckley, Richard Jewell etc. Sometimes people are just notable... even if most or even all of their coverage was for one event, so the solitary argument that all of someone's coverage came about from one event is really not very strong. Anyway, she actually has more notability outside the single event than a lot of people whose articles would be speedy kept at AFD. --W.marsh 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A comment as tendentious as it is fallacious. Eusebeus 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it should have been easy for you to answer it instead of just insult it... why do you insist on making this unpleasant? I was civil. --W.marsh 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A sophisticated variation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is still a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. And if the "notability outside the single event" refers to winning a state-level minor beauty pageant, then no, that's not actual notability. --Calton | Talk 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The insulting shortcut you link to doesn't cover my argument. Would single-incident people like Steve Bartman ever be deleted at AFD? Nope... so the claim that any single-incident person must be speedy deleted, denied an AFD, DRV automatically closed as a delete no matter what (which is what Eusebeus said, and what I responded to), and so on... that's a poor argument, because it's a broad generalization that would often not make sense. --W.marsh 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If making an idiot of oneself for a couple of minutes on national television is sufficient for an article, then "keep". If it's for her alleged accomplishments as state-level beauty-pageant winner, then Delete. --Calton | Talk 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most state pageant winners don't have articles, and this article is based on the notability of some viral video that will not be remembered in a few weeks. The info is properly sourced and shown on the regular Miss Teen 2007 page, and that's where it belongs. Dannycali 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major media figure, in my opinion the same kind of notability as that Cubs' fan--Funnyguy555 06:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't edit very often, and this is the first time I'm voting in one of these things, so take my comment with a grain of salt. However, I searched Wikipedia for this person because I was having an argument with someone over whether she went to a public school. I absolutely expected Wikipedia to have an article on her, and I was very surprised to find that weird deletion page. The short summary in the discussion had the answer I was looking for. I'm trying to figure out which criteria is being used to say that she's a candidate for deletion. Is it notability? She has numerous articles and creditable biography sites, has wide name recognition, and has appeared on numerous news and TV shows. She is a model who has made a 'unique' contribution to her field. It is true that Wikipedia is not a tabloid, but Paris Hilton's article is 10 pages long with 87 references and I fail to see any difference in notability between them. --Ozymandias42 17:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, WP:BLP1E. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E applies to privacy for "essentially low profile" people. This person is in no way "low profile", either before or after the response. --Oakshade 18:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Joe Bengo and Night Gyr Zelmerszoetrop 22:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - subject has absolutely no notability outside the pageant and therefore the incident should be included in that page. The only fame Ms. Upton has is due to the pageant, and as is the general rule, if someone has no notability outside of a certain place or event then they should be part of that place or event. Zchris87v 02:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was the same argument applied to Jessica Lee Rose by those who wanted her article to redirect to Lonelygirl15, but consensus correctly kept the article because they recognized she was a famous person regardless if it was one entity that made her famous. (One can argue in this case that Caitlin Upton is the real source of her fame and not the Miss Teen USA Pageant). The discussion about notability is if they are notable, not how. This person has arguably achieved more fame than the Miss Teen USA Pageant itself (many people never heard of the pageant before they watched her video) and certainly more fame than the winner Hilary Cruz, who is famous only because of Miss Teen USA pageant but nobody is interested in redirecting that article. --Oakshade 03:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, there's too much subject specific information about Catilin Upton like background, education, outside work (she's a model who has appeared multiple times in national magazines) and future plans which would all be off-topic in the Miss Teen USA article. --Oakshade 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the crap?!?!?!?!?! Keep! for fucks sake this question incident in itself is notable enough for a damn article. She's been interviewed by the Today Show, and numerous other media personalities... she's supposed to be going on Oprah ffs! She's clearly notable. As for content BLP... bullcrap, all content is externally sourced and accurate. The only real defense for slander is truth... sorry folks but BLP doesnt fly here as an excuse.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

[edit]
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/Caitlin_Upton&oldid=1137667525"