Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachael Faye Hill

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 July 15.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. BLP1E applies and as a policy trumps GNG based arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Faye Hill

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

I'm concerned (not convinced, but think the issue needs discussion) that this article is about a person only connected to a single event. It contains an awful lot of non-notable information (such as the company which employs the boyfriend of this person!) and relies on at least one self-published source. I'm just not sure that the subject is notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 07:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The one event is notable, and the media coverage appears relatively significant for inclusion. It's also hard to create an article for the event. Age related accomplishments are regularly included, as in the case of David Dicks, or Jessica Watson, even though they are all known for only one event. (And to those who are going to bring it up, I know, I know, WP:WAX.) I think that the event is notable, and the media coverage is significant enough to warrant, inclusion, however, I don't know if the wording of WP:1E even allows for inclusion, that's why I'm saying weak keep. If it does, then keep. --Fbifriday (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concern An IP changed my vote from weak keep to keep in this edit ID. I have changed my vote back to Weak Keep. --Fbifriday (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also must ask whether or not WP:IAR applies here, as certainly there will be some discussion in classrooms about this woman, and whether or not being removed from the encyclopedia would prevent us from maintaining the 'pedia in a way that provides the knowledge that it should. --Fbifriday (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Delete - Definitely not an Ignore all rules issue.... but I see this being relevant, but on the other hand I wonder if someone like this wants/needs the spotlight of what is largely a human interest issue. Do we give every smart kid that goes to college early an article? Unlikely. What about doctorate level degrees? Maybe, but probably not widely. Really needs a source evaluation and those source evaluations ought to have an eye for the long-term and not the recent, probably a few mentions that will inevitably follow. (how many of those might actually just be re prints?). Shadowjams (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing remarkable about her is that she has qualified as a doctor at an unusually young age. This is not only a case of WP:ONEEVENT, but also one event which, while perhaps of mild interest, is not really significant. It is the sort of detail which would merit a brief passing mention in an article about someone notable for other reasons, but not sufficient to justify a whole article in the absence of other significance or notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I speedy deleted this as I did not think she was notable. The article's creator posted to my talk page pointing out Heenal Raichura exists as an earlier 'youngest doctor' article (it survived an AfD), and when told about 'otherstuffexists' said that that was an argument to keep it. How many 'youngest doctor/lawyer/PhD/etc' articles do we want? And John William Polidori was 19 when he got his degree, even if it was in 1815, which makes this factually incorrect even if the media hasn't checked their facts. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My feelings on this article is that it has gained enough notability to be included in Wikipedia. I myself saw a full page story on this person in the Daily Mail as well as another publication (I believe the Sunday Times). As well as this, my daughters Sociology class have discussed this during their class time to judge whether pepople jumping ahead of others in school is morally or ethically correct. Due to the fact that there has been both wide spread coverage in the media as well as an issue that is prompting discussion I believe that the article should be included and should not be removed. I believe there would also be a genuine use of the OSE WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument as DougWeller has pointed out above that a previous Afd discussion found in a similar topics favour.CrazyMiner (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OSE is usually a deletion argument, which also explains your misunderstanding about how "pepople" [sic] gain school notability is flawed in terms of our Notability policy. This isn't about how many local news stories you can rack up; it's about how the underlying issue reaches critical mass in terms of notability. There's a big distinction between a newspaper archive an an encyclopedia. Moreover, we're talking about a young woman here, who while obviously brilliant, doesn't necessarily deserve to be thrust into the public lime-light. There's zero-indication she's wanted that, and I think it's beyond unfair to turn human interest stories that make it national, for very short time frames, into permanent articles. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I understand your point of view, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is both a keep as well as a deletion argument as the wiki-explanation suggests. She has obviously approached newspapers etc to gain notability as Universities and the like do not simply release information about people on a whim. Wiki notability articles suggest that regardless of the subject, if an article has achieved significant sources (e.g. a major daily newspaper) then the article should be included. I have also just done a quick search and found that there are numerous independent media sources (news papers etc) that have reported this topic themselves rather than simply reposting the same story. As such, there does seem to be ample media coverage worthy of using the argument of notability gained through ample media coverage.CrazyMiner (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look over the notability page WP:NOTABILITY and I believe that the article should be kept due to the level of notability gained. The notability page states that in order for an article to be entered onto Wikipedia, credible evidence needs to exist, such as reputable media sources (which this topic has) as well as the fact that notability is not temporary, in that "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" - quote from the WP:NOTABILITY page. CrazyMiner (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial WP:BLP1E coverage of a real-life Doogie Howser. News-buzz-of-the-day human interest stories are not worth an entry in an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article should be kept for several reasons. First of all, under WP:NOTABILITY rules, Dr Hill has achieved a large amount of media coverage which WP:NOTABILITY states means that an article should be kept, even if there has been only a single event. Secondly, one-time age related achievements are included all over Wikipedia, for example David Dicks was the youngest person to sail non-stop and solo around the world. Also, I think that removing the article from Wikipedia would potentially restrict discussion and research on the subject in the future. As far as I can see, there are a lot of arguments for why this article should stay, however the only arguments against it being kept seem to be more centred around opinion and go against Wikipedia rules such as WP:NOTABILITY and WP:OSE. MartinManson (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One-time age related achievements are included all over Wikipedia—so WP:WAX then? Removing the article from Wikipedia would potentially restrict discussion and research on the subject in the future—so WP:ITSUSEFUL then? The only arguments against it being kept seem to be more centred around opinion and go against Wikipedia rules—so WP:ABF then? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 19:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Significant coverage in reliable sources, as evidenced by the Daily Mail piece. While I know that AfD doesn't set precedent, we did go through this before with Heenal Raichura, and the outcome there was to keep the article. However, that's secondary; the coverage of Hill lets the article stand on its own merits. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the above comment was left by an editor who was apparently canvassed for this discussion, or at least votestack-ed by the article creator. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been in my watchlist since two minutes or less from its creation. I would have made it to this discussion at some point today, talk message or no. Given how heavily I'd been involved in editing the page, especially based on line-item count at the page history, the original editor's note to me was reasonable; it's arguable that I should have been notified of the nomination when it was made. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's arguable that I should have been notified of the nomination when it was made. No, it isn't. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No canvassing appears to have happened here that goes against the AfD regulations as the creating editor simply invited significant contributors to give their opinions, as is allowed by Notifying interested people. CrazyMiner (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and sufficient reliable sources (despite my suggestion of OTHESTUFFEXISTS before reading this AfD). — Jeff G. ツ 04:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, the coverage is there, but any notability is temporary; the same problem applies to the other youngest doctor/oldest person/etc entries. Hairhorn (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look at the sources in the article: six are news coverage based on one event, three don't mention her and the Biography section is totally unsourced. A clear failure of WP:BLP1E and indeed WP:NOTNEWS to my mind. Alzarian16 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (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.