Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Boomker


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Amelia Boomker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BLP1E WP is not the Guinness book of records. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, Thanks for telling me that WP is not Guiness Book of World Records. So when are we gonna delete all the articles on world record holders then? Dial911 (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make this person notable. Before having beaten the record she was unknown and when someone else beats her record it is unlikely that she will be known for anything else. The articles all treat her beating the record this is a classic BLP1E article. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, see category:world record holders. What about the person who is the current tallest in the world? He was preceded by someone else (who also has an article). This man might be succeeded by someone just as Amelia was preceded and might be succeeded in the future. What about that person who has an article just because he is completely covered in tattoo? There are many more like that. Amelia atleast has an impact on the community. She helped many kids who needed breast milk. Anyways, let the community decide. I respect your judgement as an individual. Dial911 (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Just for information on these types of discussions I would request all participating editors to look  at the 2 Afd nominations for Xie Qiuping here and here. For the exact same reasons and arguments listed on these 2 AfDs, I think this Article should be kept without any question. Dial911 (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * These are discussions from 10 years ago. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Do you have anything more recent? Dom from Paris (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is indeed a work in progress. And so is Guiness World Record. There is so much of competition that only utmost calibre gets to come in the Book of records. Moreover, the rationale in this case remains the same. And having a guiness world record is obviously notable. Amelia donated 4000 bottles of milk in a duration of time same as that lady grew her hair in a continuous manner. I just don’t see a point as to why a World Record Holder is not eligible for an encyclopedic entry. Dial911 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The opinion as to what constitutes a BLP1E may have changed. Here is a more recent one. Articles for deletion/Krishna Pandey. But as per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I think it better to allow other editors to !vote. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s funny how Afds become a battle of ‘I am right and you are wrong’. And this keeps encyclopedia from getting rich in reliable content. It indeed is better to allow others to voice their opinion. Dial911 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS (on a slow news day at that, apparently). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete no substantial sustained coverage to show notability. I have to agree that we have lots of articles on Guiness Book of World Records holders that ought to be deleted, but we look at articles in most cases one at a time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment consensus can change. 10 years ago there was a view that Wikipedia should try to have a very large number of biographies. We have since come to realize this leads to lots of low quality biographies and a failure to actually maintain them at a reasonable level. There is no reason we should have deletion discussions of 10 or more years ago used as millstones around our necks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , Current policy states: "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met...and the third point is 'If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Setting up a world record is definitely a significant event. And Amelia's role is substantial and well documented for obvious reasons. This policy was applicable if I had created an article on the 'nurse who helped Amelia donating milk in the hospital.' Her role would have been not substantial as she didn't set the record. But Amelia's role is substantial (as she set the record) and setting up a world record is significant event in the world. It's a pretty straightforward policy. Why so much fuss around it? Dial911 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, is WP:ONEEVENT relevant here? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This policy has “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.“ Again, setting up a WORLD RECORD is a highly significant event and her role is obviously large one. If this is being discussed here then Why do we even have category:world record holders then? Dial911 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Guinness world records holds a data base of over 40,000 different records some of which are far from being significant such as the largest.number of facial masks applied simultaneously. If we follow your logic then every single record would have a WP page if there were a couple of articles in RS. There are notable people that are record holders hence the category but not every record holder is notable. Even if BLP1E may not apply (even if I think it.does) what is lacking here is WP:SUSTAINED notability. All the sources date from 1 week in March 2014. To show that this is not just a news article reporting the fact that she broke the record are there any more recent sources that talk about her? Dom from Paris (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if there are RS on world record holders then WP should have them all. That is what WP is, an open-source referenced encyclopedia of reliable information. I am sure there will not be significant coverage of all 40,000+ world record holders in reliable secondary source so sadly, even if you follow my logic, not all world record holders will have entry on WP. Dial911 (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment just checked the Guinness records page and she was the previous world record holder. But her record was broke just a few days after the reports i  the article. The actual record.holder donated more than 3 times what she did. I suggest that the article creator requests deletion themself. []. Before creating an article a bit of fact checking might be useful. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Though I still think an article about former World Record holder should get an entry here as there are other entries for the past record holders. yet I have marked it for CSD. Dial911 (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sultan Kösen is the current world record holder for being tallest man. However, Bao Xishun, Radhouane Charbib and all others have an article even after their record was broken years ago. Because their notability has been established. Same as Amelia's. Dial911 (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Tall people get noticed. Lesser record setters, such as Amelia and flagpole sitters don't. H. David Werder was up there for over 439 days, but nobody at Wikipedia saluted. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly and Boomker only held the record for a few months and in actual fact had probably never really been the record holder as the other woman had donated much more than her over a similar period. Have you found any more recent sources?Dom from Paris (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete clearly fails WP:BLP1E and is not otherwise notable. This is a local odd news feature article masquerading as a Wikipedia topic. SportingFlyer  talk  01:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.