Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talia Castellano: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:51, 17 July 2013

Talia Castellano

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Wikipedia is not a place for a person who only became notable for her death. Just because her death was announced on a lot of news sites does not make her a notable-enough girl to appear on Wikipedia. Now, there could probably be more news sources on this girl other than about her death that I don't know of, but if there aren't any, this should be covered on Wikinews instead of here. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 21:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator. I have also request that this page be protected due to some recent vandalism on this page. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Featured twice on Ellen (TV series), reported on before her death at CBS [1]. Article needs expansion, not deletion. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you add the knowledge you got from her TV appearances to the article. Could it be that there wasn't much to it apart from the fact she was dying and had a YouTube page?Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seconded Same reasons as above. She was also featured in magazines, as stated in the article, and other media prior to her death. --Lilduff90 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thirded Everything mentioned above, to me, makes this article notable. ThunderPower (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fourth Should we remove Terry Fox too? People can be known for anything, actors are "only" known for acting, what's so great about that? I can point to countless people listed on Wikipedia with less information on them than this inspirational girl, and she's made headlines around the world. It would get ugly if she was removed just because some people don't think she's "notable" enough considering there's so many others listed on Wiki that are so unnotable that they don't even get flagged for their one line blip of information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellinnta (talk • contribs)

This template must be substituted.

Delete She is described as a "make-up artist". She was a school child. Anyone can have a YouTube channel these days. It does not make one a person of note who should feature in an encyclopedia. Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your argument word by word, but how it is related with the current case? The article about her was not created in reason of her being a school child or her running a YouTube channel (otherwise speedy_deletion via A7 would apply) but in reason of the coverage she received, during and after her life. We can discuss if it is enough to justify a claim of notability, but clearly she was not a random young girl who run a YouTube channel, I run one but I have not received such coverage nor I was put on the cover of a notable magazine nor I appeared multiple times in a notable show (nor I have the quite impressive number of 39 million views!). Cavarrone 07:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified this in the article and will put it here: CoverGirl is not a magazine. — Wylie pedia 10:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A kid got a little famous on youtube, she dies, so we create an article, I hope not. Nottruelosa (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC) vote struck as editor was indefinitely blocked, and also an offensive rationale here. Nate • (chatter) 03:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lets not set a precedence. Yes over half a million google hits and appeared on the cover of an American magazine but still not notable..--Stemoc (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BIO1E. Biographical articles are designed to be for people who are notable in their own right. Subject is only "famous" due to her cancer (otherwise she'd be a kid with a YouTube channel), and I'd say that "having a YouTube channel" is a stretch. If she was so famous, why did she have to die before an article was created, and why are the only sources obituaries? We seem to have a rash of "somebody died and made the news, let's write a stub" articles as of late, though this has been a pervasive problem on WP for years.MSJapan (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sophie Grace & Rosie were YouTube "sensations", recurred on The Ellen DeGeneres Show and still aren't notable enough to have an article. Neither is this girl. — Wylie pedia 01:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I have no idea about who Sophie Grace & Rosie are, but not having (yet) an article is not a proof of non-notability for Talia Castellano, nor it means that Sophie Grace & Rosie are not-eligible for an article. It depends how much significant coverage in reliable sources they received, if their status of Internet celebrities is verifiable etc. Cavarrone 06:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO, notability not established, agree with comments above especially Williamgeorgefraser. WWGB (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad event, but there's not much notability here as these kinds of 'dying child has dreams come true' stories happen regularly. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nate • (chatter) 03:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person was notable before her death, internationally for that matter. [2][3][4][5][6] WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply as that is for people who did not receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources as this person has, ie, someone's beloved grandpa. WP:GNG is not about how someone became notable, but if someone is notable. WP:BIO1E clearly states it is for "low profile" individuals which this person was not. --Oakshade (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it doesn't warrant a WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but the only reason she was given so much "media coverage" was not because of her achievements but because of her "disease", hate to agree with the banned trolled whose vote was struck off but the fact of the matter is, had she not being sick, she would not have gotten any media coverage, there are 100's of people her age on youtube adn some with similar problems and as i said earlier, lets not set a precedence, we don't want people using this article as an example to add similar articles in the future. She is notable to a smaller degree as as semi important internet celebrity but honestly, just not at a degree where we can say she deserves to be listed on wikipedia.--Stemoc (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to like the reasons she became notable, but she became notable per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG nonetheless. --Oakshade (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we are going to start removing Wikipedia pages solely because the person became famous because of their death, explain having a page for Ronald Goldman. If a person shouldn't have a page because they became famous for being terminally ill, maybe someone should flag Ryan White's for deletion. And is Perez Hilton famous for anything besides running a celebrity gossip blog? All three of those people have Wikipedia pages. Maybe I see this from a different perspective, as a heavy participant in Relay For Life, but I saw just how much impact Talia had upon cancer survivors. She really and truly was an inspiration for so many fighting the disease. To try to dismiss her as a "YouTube star", or as someone famous for their illness or death, truly diminishes what she did during her all-too-brief time on Earth, and what she meant to a lot of people. Keep the page - both because it's the right thing to do, and to remove it would create a real double-standard. IngridsLittleAngel (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted. WWGB (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ditto for above. Thinking of deleting it for the above reasons is just sad and deplorable. What is this world coming to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.225.252 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted. WWGB (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan White was the poster child for HIV/AIDS, a disease which to this day remains incurable, Ronald Goldman on his own is not notable but he is linked to one of the biggest trials in history. Perez was an average blogger once but his popularity grew and as such became notable enough for inclusion in time..I'm not sure how appearing in magazines and talking about your illness is actually "doing something"?. There was this Tongan girl with a similar problem, Tae Kami, she also had cancer, she wanted to be a singer and she was diagnosed with a rare cancer of the jaw, after her death her family set up a "Walk on Walk Strong" foundation (a song she wrote and sang) to raise money for other cancer patients in the Pacific Region and even she is not notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. I'm just giving an example...notability requirements are such on wikipedia. This isn't a "popularity contest" so its probably not a wise idea to get other people to come here from probably facebook and fight her articles' inclusion on wikipedia... Wikipedia generally accepts only opinions from actual members, if you want to be part of wikipedia and comment here, create an account.--Stemoc (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though, I thought this discussion was about the page, and not me. But, pleased now? IngridsLittleAngel (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passed WP:GNG and WP:ENT even before her death, as the same sources of the article (plus the coverage listed above) show. Defining her as "a person who only became notable for her death" is misleading. Cavarrone 05:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News of her death has appeared in the New York Daily News, Los Angeles Times, NPR, The Huffington Post, Enterainment Weekly, ABC News CBS News, and over 100 other news sites. All cited more than just her death. During her lifetime, stories about her appeared on many of these sites, and on others. If all of these news sources considered her notable enough to run stories while she was alive and of her death, how can we declare that she isn't notable?Tom Barrister 06:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombarrister (talk • contribs)
- Comment on this argument from nominator. Okay, well could you at least list all these sources you found? Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 16:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument behind the individual only being notable because of their death, is absolutely repugnant. As sources have demonstrated, the individual passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT; as articles have detailed her past, and in particular 'internet personality' status. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has received internation press coverage. --Racklever (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on this argument from nominator. Okay, well, could you put what "internation[al] press coverage" you found instead of just saying he has it? Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 16:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait We went through this last year with Ben Breedlove - this is simply not a good time to be discussing deletion. Give the coverage time to play out and we'll see whether the article meets GNG in a year or so. There's no way to reach any kind of consensus right now. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fence I understand what both sides are saying, but I am torn both ways. On the one hand, we support articles for such things as the List of Playboy Playmates of the Month (and this is not a moral argument I am making). Most of those models (and I am not saying all) will only end up in their life as famous for that one thing that may or may not be beyond their control. And every single one of them have an article. And yet here is a person who appears on the cover of an equally famous magazine CoverGirl who instead of having looks has cancer. That is a tough double standard to enforce. My concern is that the notoriety is fleeting, but by that same standard, arent the Bunnys? I dont know. Will think about it for a bit.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is Keep, Keep and Keep. I repeated myself because #1. She is obviously notorious when her death was covered on every news program in the USA, and #2, I am the Naseem Hamed of Wikipedia. Antonio Seem the Prince Martin, Loser's talk 08;18, 17 July, 2013 (UTC)

Keep Article need expansion, not deletion. If subject is memetized i(2011, http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/talia-joy) it's definitely worth article. Serg3d2 (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait/Keep I agree with User:Bienfuxia. This discussion is a bit early to have.

tausif(talk) 12:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Talia was a girl who inspired thousands of people (not in the least very young people like herself) to keep a positive outlook on their lives despite the their own sorrows (whatever they may be). I am a cancer-patient myself, living half way across the globe from Talia, and I will be eternally grateful to have seen (and be inspired by) the limitless positivity of Talia. In this manner this girl has undoubtedly helped many (young) people around the globe cope with their own (terminal) illnesses in a positive way.

Now some of you may say that if she touched thousands of people their hearts, that does not constitute a lot of notability. I would like to ask those people how many hearts one is supposed to touch in order to be?? To reach so many people worldwide in only thirteen years is an accomplishment many a world-famous star won't be able to better!

I sincerely hope that Talia will be allowed to keep inspiring young people, and that wikimedia will continue to offer this article as a portal into Talia's unlimited love and strength!

Therefore: expand, not delete!

Rutger Colin Kips, the Netherlands37.251.15.236 (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted.

- Comment on this argument from nominator. Okay. Thanks for letting us know that she was a very important person to a lot of people, but could you still focus on the notability with independent sources please, instead of saying a WP:ILIKEIT arguemnt? Thank you. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 16:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Known celebrity who has appeared on national talk shows. We have other precedents mentioned in this deletion discussion. Article needs some serious work. --Zerbey (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In spite of all the arguments about keeping this article, I don't see many or any of the "Keep" brigade adding anything of note about her life. Rather than argue against deletion, surely it is better to turn the article into one that people want to read. However, for the moment, it is still a stub and will forever more remain one.Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sad story, but not notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just "not notable"? Care to explain how someone who has received significant in-depth coverage in both life and death, thus passing WP:NOTABILITY is "not notable"? --Oakshade (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even though this is a 100% "americanized" story of the poor cute girl that dies of cancer.. i guess she is notable as her death has been mentioned on all big news media.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No one had considered Talia encyclopedic enough to create an article about her until she died. Therefore, the article about Talia was clearly created as a response to her death. While her death is undeniably sad, there is nothing particularly newsworthy about the way that she died. So, if she wasn't noteworthy enough to have an article in life, and there was nothing uniquely noteworthy about the fashion in which she died, she doesn't warrant an article because she passed away. As stated previously, this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very silly argument. At minimum 10% of biographies, I bet, are created shorty later a person is dead, and I myself have created dozens of articles about people a few hours after they died (eg. Pierre Sadek, Luciano Lutring, Teresa Mattei, Regina Bianchi...). The timing of creation of this article is very common and obviously unrelated with the notability of a subject. Cavarrone 21:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article was created before her death [7] and speedy deleted because a single user felt it didn't indicate importance. But everything Carvarrone stated is correct. The previous lack of article creation has absolutely nothing to do with the notability of the person. There's a great amount of significant coverage on this person that can be the source of content way beyond a stub. --Oakshade (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Talia inspired thousands, and was famous before her death. What's the problem with having a page about her? It's not like her page takes up space on the internet.

In principle, I actually agree with you here. However, this rationale doesn't mesh with Wikipedia policy. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 :*Actually the article was created before her death [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talia+Castellano] and speedy deleted because a single user felt it didn't indicate importance.  But everything Carvarrone stated is correct.  The previous lack of article creation has absolutely nothing to do with the notability of the person.  There's a great amount of significant coverage on this person that can be the source of content way beyond a stub. --[[User:Oakshade|Oakshade]] ([[User talk:Oakshade|talk]]) 21:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - Talia inspired thousands, and was famous before her death. What's the problem with having a page about her? It's not like her page takes up space on the internet.
+:* In principle, I actually agree with you here.  However, this rationale doesn't mesh with Wikipedia policy. [[Special:Contributions/64.201.173.145|64.201.173.145]] ([[User talk:64.201.173.145|talk]]) 22:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)