Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (3rd nomination)

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelli Stavast

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It is now almost 8 months since the first nomination and while there have been a few additional passing mentions in association with "

database of NASCAR personnel. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Motorsport, and Colorado. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep leaving aside the Let's Go Brandon stuff, I see significant coverage in Chapman News and Frontstretch Mujinga (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chapman News is not independent - it is a university news outlet reporting on her (an alumni), with many quotes from her, e.g. "Part of the reason I chose Chapman over other schools...". The Frontstretch post is about pit reporting generally, with quotes from Stavast based on an interview, and the limited prose about her work does not appear independent, because it summarizes her descriptions of her work. Beccaynr (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mujinga. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 18:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yup, she's still notable minus Brandon; no change in my previous rationale, and that's all I have to say. chatter) 20:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep for the same reasons found in the previous nomination, which was withdrawn after an overwhelming consensus to keep. Very little has changed since then. Stavast is notable even without the “LGB” misspeak, and there was and still is significant coverage making her a clear pass of
WP:GNG Frank Anchor 22:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
"Which was withdrawn in order to give time for the meme nonsense to die down, after the first discussion closed with no consensus because of the aformentioned nonsense"** Fixed that for you. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 22:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it is clear that she is notable even without what you call “meme nonsense,” as was overwhelmingly demonstrated by the two prior AFDs. Frank Anchor 22:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I agree that very little has changed; the sources still are not both independent or significant and this article should be deleted for that reason. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 22:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately almost 100% of the others in the ~~prior AFDs~~ second AFD did not see it the way you do and bring up several reliable sources that you (and only you) claim to be invalid. Frank Anchor 23:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC) (minor modification as I inadvertently misrepresented the first AFD Frank Anchor 01:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Except that's not how the closer of the first AfD saw things. They clearly saw a significant number of delete !votes and likely also discounted the numerous SPAs and socks who popped up in that discussion. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 23:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin of the first AFD made no mention of SPAs or socks. So you are misrepresenting his/her opinion. Frank Anchor 01:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator; a clear case of someone who is only notable for
WP:BLP concerns for me here about keeping this article online with the potential for defamatory vandalism or the like. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Several sources in this article predate the LGB "movement" so any
WP:SIGCOV, that is an entirely separate issue. Frank Anchor 14:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I don't see a real reason to delete this article. Arguing
WP:NOT1E#"One dominant event". Additionally, keep in mind that someone reaching this article through its main sources of linked traffic (Let's Go Brandon and Brandon Brown (racing driver)), likely would be doing so to find out more about Kelli's career as a reporter, which this article covers. ~XyNq^t_c 17:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I would say that the article was created in a good faith attempt to make a complete
database on the NASCAR pit reporters, as can be evidenced in the first edit summary of the article ("...Now, all the major/notable TV analysts for NASCAR have articles. Both of them were the only two that didn't have articles until today.") and even Frontstretch, the only source which comes close to sniffing GNG acceptability, is still mostly based on an interview with the subject. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per comments above. Third pointless nomination of the same article in less than a year. She was already notable before and without the "Let's Go Brandon" incident. While it made her go viral worldwide for some time, associating all her fame with it is absurd. Her career as a reporter goes so much further than that and there is
WP:SIGCOV to prove it. MSport1005 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Anything significant is not independent and anything independent is not significant. The only source that comes close to being both is Frontstretch, so even if you want to count it, that's still only a single source. So how is this meeting GNG requirements? -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't get why this article keeps getting pointlessly nominated for deletion, she's notable enough even without the "Let's Go Brandon" fiasco. Nascar9919 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just want to reply generally to anyone giving the argument of "It existed for 10 months before LBG" Okay? And? The sourcing, as can be seen in the history, was inadequate then, too and if I had come across the article sooner (really, 10 months is a very brief window), I would have nominated at that time as well. Literally the only additional references since the meme blew up have been passing mentions related to it. GNG was not met then, it's still not after LGB. I am not arguing BLP1E, but I am arguing that GNG has never been met for this person. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ten months is not at all a brief window. Even if the article was created ten minutes before LGB became a thing, it invalidates any BLP1E argument. And there several sourced articles in the page dated well before September 2021 which the vast majority of editors in this AFD and the last AFD consider to be reliable and independent. Obviously longevity of an article alone is not a reason to keep an article, but it shows notability independent of the LGB event. Frank Anchor 01:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using weasel words such as "vast majority" and "very small minority" as this is simply not true. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 01:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will most certainly not be doing so, because it is 100% true that a "vast majority" of contributors make some indication that there are reliable and independent sources. Between the 2nd nomination and this nomination, 12 of 15 users who made references to the sources either directly or indirectly via another user's rationale [e.g. "keep per User:X"] find the sources to be acceptable. That's 80%, which is certainly a vast majority. (nothing in this post is meant to suggest this
AFD is a vote. I am simply pointing out where all of the participants have stood on this one issue). Frank Anchor 02:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Notable and referenced. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2022 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kelli_Stavast_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1094370255"