Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Shattuck


 * 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   merge to Mayo A. Shattuck III Three of five editors support the merge, and it seems like a reasonable compromise.  Enigma msg  17:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Molly Shattuck

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article fails to meet WP:BIO. Wikipedia does not benefit from having vanity articles for every cheerleader or game-show contestant that has ever lived. Distinct notability for the fields mentioned not established. Ash (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep To some extent I share your dislike for similar "notable personalities". However, Molly Shattuck was the oldest NFL cheerleader, which was covered in reliable media: CBSNews, People.com, Gelf Magazine etc. The subject meets WP:BIO, as "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". In this case, the field is cheerleading. In my opinion, it is possible to write an encyclopedic article using reliable sources. All of this is absolutely uninteresting for me, but it could be interesting for someone else. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking about the term "enduring historical record"... if the only thing she's truly notable for is having been the oldest cheerleader for the Ravens (the sources do not actually establish that she was the oldest for all teams in the USA, or the world) then this still looks like a poor argument for notability considering the long term view. Compare being athletic enough at 38 to do cheerleader routines with the people on List of oldest professional athletes by sport.—Ash (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I would support also merging to Mayo A. Shattuck III, as Racepacket suggests. It seems to be a sensible outcome. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you change your vote to keep or merge? As mentioned, she is not the oldest NFL cheerleader, so even if that would be enough for an article, she doesn't meet it. Alio The Fool 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- she is not the oldest person to engage in cheerleading. Her "fame" stems from her marriage to the head of the Baltimore-based electric and gas utility.  Absent that connection, the press would not cover her and she would not have the reality show engagement.  There are thousands of CEOs of American companies whose wives gain local press coverage ("Mrs. CEO organizes charity event"; "Mrs. CEO takes a trip", etc.)  However, such incidental local coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. At most, add a sentence to the Mayo Shattuck article about his wife. Racepacket (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep e.g. notability on her own in Secret Millionaire, whether she achieved this through her husband's money or not is irrelevent it is not the same as notability confered from her husband. Jbtscott (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources above pass WP:GNG. We're not here to judge why a subject is notable. We're not here to put our personal tastes in judging notability. Yes, I personally don't care about this cheerleader. But she is notable. There are sources that allow an article to be written. That's all we need. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I might agree with you if there was a source that demonstrated she was notable for being the oldest known cheerleader to do this on any team.—Ash (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And why has he to be notable "for being the oldest..."? She's been covered in sources. Maybe she is the oldest, or not, but that is irrelevant. The point is that sources have discussed her, thus we can (and ought) report her. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is wrong. "Being mentioned in an article" does not make you notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I can find thousands of people mentioned in articles that have very little notability. She has not done anything to make her notable, except marry someone. So she can have a mention in her husband's article. Alio The Fool 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your question; I am basing my nomination on WP:BIO, specifically to meet "part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Shattuck's biographical article has to demonstrate she is notable in the sense of the historical record of cheer-leading (or another field), not just that several papers have picked up a human interest story. None of the sources discussed so far make a clear case for that as I have already explained.—Ash (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that WP:BIO is a complement to WP:GNG, and in any case it has to demonstrate that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] -which seems to be the case. What you're talking about are additional criteria: in fact WP:BIO says: Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Notability. Once we meet WP:N, notability is therefore established. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete She is not the oldest. There have been two cheerleaders older than her. She has no notability outside of being someone's wife. Being a cheerleader is not notable. Being on some second rate show is not notable. This should either be deleted or merged to her husband's article. Alio The Fool 21:06, 13 January 2010 (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.