Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (2nd nomination)

Important comment to closing admin

 * The number of arguments on both sides is now so significant that this AfD cannot be closed as anything other than "No consensus". If it is closed as Delete, or indeed as Keep, that will be nothing less than abuse of admin tools. Closing admins do not have the right to ignore arguments given in good faith, even if they don't agree with them. If that happens, I will take it (yet again) to DRV. Walton alternate account  09:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If that were true then no controversial deletion or keep decision could ever be made, and these decisions must be made at some point. Whichever admin does close this had better write a damned good explanation though, for their own sake. --tjstrf talk 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As indeed is the case. The Deletion guidelines for administrators clearly say: "When in doubt, don't delete". Of course, a "No consensus" decision is in reality tantamount to a "Keep" decision. In this case, as Walton points out, it would be ridiculous to claim that a consensus has been reached. Unless opinion should shift significantly, which is unlikely, the only way this article could be deleted at this point would be through an Office Action by Jimmy Wales or other Wikipedia staff. I believe these are only performed at the request of the subject, however. Lampman 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Admins often close 'no consensus' results not as 'keep' but according to what they consider to be the weight of the arguments presented. In this case elite opinion seems to be on the side of 'delete' so I'd say the closing admin is most likely to delete the article. At that point any further DRV-attempts will likely be speedily closed. Haukur 13:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Elite opinion?" I don't remember any policies about "elite opinions" being worth more than those of the, uh, WikiProletariat. --Ashenai 13:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the comment was an observation that the majority of the long-standing admins who have voiced opinions have favored deletion. If that is a somewhat representative sample of the active admin core then it makes it more likely the closer will close for deletion. JoshuaZ 13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly what I meant. You put it very clearly. Haukur 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, "elite opinion"!? Apart from the unparalleled arrogance, that is simply not true; there are weighty arguments by admins and solid contributors on both sides of the debate. Any closing admin trying to delete the article had better come up with something better than that! Lampman 13:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding, read JoshuaZ's comment again. Haukur 14:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy crap! Elite opinion? Just wow.  Grue   13:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, that’s just the kind of arrogance that started the trouble here, when an admin decided to speedy the article without consulting the community. Never mind that Alkivar, Night Gyr, Prolog, DGG, Walton and AnonEMouse – all admins – have come down on “Keep”, that’s besides the point; admins are not gods, they’re just housekeepers, and everyone has an equal right to be heard. Please, no more ‘my friends say “Delete”’-arguments. Lampman 14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Add me, even though it's beside the point... Tyrenius 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to describe how things work around here. You were saying there was no way now the article could be deleted without OFFICE. I'm saying the closing admin can (and IMO probably will) decide the argument favors deletion and go with that. Even if s/he doesn't we could still have another round of speedy-deletions and restorations (a wheel war). This just isn't a very orderly place. Haukur 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don’t think I am misunderstanding. As I’ve said, I believe you’re wrong about admins being predominantly in favour of "Delete", but that doesn’t really matter, cause since when did we start counting admins on AfD, and ignore everyone else? That would be changing the rules in the middle of the game to get the result you want, and I don’t think a responsible admin would do that. As for anyone speedying an article that’s survived an AfD, that would just be pure vandalism, and that person should be desysoped. Lampman 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I wasn't saying the closing admin would count only admin opinion. AfD-survivors get speedied all the time. Haukur 14:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And I’m saying they shouldn’t be counted at all. I can’t predict what an admin will do, I’m only saying what a responsible admin should not do. I’ve re-read the Deletion guidelines for administrators, and I find no basis for such a practice. The only weighing of opinions based on the contributor that’s allowed is ignoring sock puppets and users without edits. It says nothing about admins being more important than others, as indeed they shouldn’t be. Of course the weight of arguments must be considered, but when strong and valid arguments have been made on both sides, a closing admin can’t come down on one side or the other. The closing admin is not supposed to take sides in a debate, but impartially interpret the community’s consensus – or lack thereof. Lampman 14:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not saying the closing admin would count admin opinion more heavily (though she might). Even if you think there are strong and valid arguments on both sides the closing admin may not agree with you or may think that those on one side are considerably stronger and more valid. Browse through the AfD archives and you'll see a lot of examples of admins deleting articles where there is no consensus in the discussion. Haukur 15:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree totally with Lampman, who has summarised the point I was originally trying to make. Although it's acceptable to ignore sockpuppets, SPAs and bad-faith comments, any coherent opinion given in good faith should not be ignored. I totally disagree with the idea that the views of "elite users" should be given more weight. Walton Assistance!  18:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think everyone's opinions but mine should be ignored. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It should not be ignored, true, but if it is contrary to policy, it should be disregarded. (that's a distinction with a difference) And further, I would consider repeatedly bringing something to DRV until you got your own desired result to be disruptive. Repeatedly doing that is, in my view, grounds for blocking, as the proper course is dispute resolution. Given that there is an arbcom case underway that should provide clarity, the prudent thing to do is to let things stay deleted, as there is no possible harm from something being temporarily deleted, but there IS possible harm from something being not deleted that should be. ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The boat has already sailed on that, to some degree, by having this AfD in the first place. --bainer (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

compromise?
I think user:Pushsense JavaTenor had very good idea above which most people here can agree too. Allision Strokke is not notable as a athlete, but the unwanted internet attention she has endured is notable as it "speaks to the concerns many have over the shifting nature of private citizenship in an era in which anyone with a blog can instantly disseminate information and photographs". WP:BLP#Articles about living people notable only for one event says
 * "Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy...Cover the event, not the person."

Merging this article and similar articles to a new article covering "unwanted internet attention" can have many advantages. First, it is explicitly recommend by WP:BLP. Also, as the article is not covering individuals there is no need to say any private information beyond the little that is needed to understand their "fame". The new article can give context and background to internet privacy concerns common to these individuals. Also, as all the references to these people will be in one place it is easier to make sure the content says under control and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon513 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 June 2007
 * Except she is notable as an athlete. I'm extremely opposed to a merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We know. A search for a community compromise is a good idea. It wont please everyone of course. Compromise isn't about - finding a way to please Jeff. Your opposition is noted. What do others think?--Docg 11:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think a compromise is necessary here, however. Certainly, there's been no demonstrated need for one, so why put it on the table? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we know what you think. Anyone else?--Docg 12:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this would be a productive solution acceptable to most rational people, and I would support it. Biographical articles are rarely the best way to present this kind of information. --bainer (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you curb language suggesting that those who may oppose this proposal are irrational, for starters. Secondly, it doesn't seem like a very good idea, given the subject's notability as both a athlete and for the internet thing. Tarc 12:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite what you may think, she's not notable as an athlete... yet. --Ali&#39;i 13:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say her national records disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Y'know I'm sure you've said that already. Others disagree.--Docg 13:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's nice. I've said it again, though, so it's clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so it is more clear, which national records does she actually hold? Mahalo, Jeff. --Ali&#39;i 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard to say how many national records she currently holds, but she has at least broken five of them, and was ranked tenth in the world in the 1988-1990-born age class (third in 1989 and younger) in 2005. Prolog 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If she was ranked 10th in the world, who were ranked 1-9? Why don't we have articles about them?  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because noone posted pictures of them all over the Internet, and so noone is making efforts to "prove" them notable. --bainer (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It says behind the link who were ranked 1-9. I do not know if they have articles, but if these athletes meet WP:BIO and WP:V, like Stokke, then by all means go create articles for them. Prolog 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because no one has bothered to make them yet? Seems like a worthwhile project, actually.  How come no one made an article about the 1935 Academy Award winner for Best Short Subject until this week?  It's not because it wasn't worthy, but because no one had gotten to it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia, a top-ten website, is going to compile and maintain a list of people who have attracted "unwanted internet attention?" Tom Harrison Talk 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Any such article should not be a list, it should be prose and based on scholarly sources, if there are any; I would suspect that there are some. --bainer (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Partial support. I like the idea that information about her internet attention be in a separate place rather than in her article, since it really wasn't her doing; however I do think she does qualify for a short article focusing on her athletic achievements. Setting national records isn't nothing, and has been covered by multiple independent sources. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support this compromise, but only if it does not involve a separate article on Stokke that includes no mention of the meme. Such an article will inevitably become the focus of continued attention from fans (i.e., part of the problem), unless the issue and its negative consequences for the subject are addressed head on.--ragesoss 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No support. Such an article is a BLP disaster/revert war waiting to happen. Delete the crap about her being attractive and judge the article on whether being a high school record holder warrants an article on its own. MartinDK 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can you clarify your views a bit? Are you opposed to description of the Stokke case and public relations campaign in a new article (not a bio) similar to Internet privacy and that might include examples like Kathy Sierra? This would let the bio survive or not on her athletic merits (I'm not seeing much consensus on that currently). If a seealso section on the bio causes a revert war, then that could be dealt with in due course, no? Canuckle 18:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not, and never has been, Wikipedia policy to delete article which are "disaster waiting to happen". Rather we deal with issue as they arise possibly with semi or full protection.  George W. Bush is constantly the target of vandalism and NPOV - we do not delete it.  Jon513 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was being unclear. What I mean is that an article whose sole purpose is to merge all these "internet fame" stories does not solve the problem. Sure, it boils the problem down to one article rather than this constant flow of AfD's due to BLP concerns but it doesn't resolve the dispute over how WP:BLP should be interpreted. If this girl passes WP:BIO due to her athletic achievements then keep the article without the internet fame part. If not, then delete the article. By creating a seperate article about people who have achieved internet fame we could infact face a situation where her only mention on Wikipedia is that a group of people found her attractive. That's not really how a serious encyclopedia works. It's not because I want to choose sides in the current dispute on ArbCom over these things but in my opinion common sense overrules process per Wikiepdia is not a bureaucracy. Further more, as a top 10 website we do have an obligation to treat people fairly, especially since Wikipedia due to the nature of a wiki tends to be the first place people look when searching for information. MartinDK 10:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree with most of your sentiments, but the one question I have is "Where do we draw the line." Certainly, in the coming decades, at least some of these people who have Internet fame will be notable enough for a traditional paper encyclopedia. Wikipedia, not being limited by the same things a paper encyclopedia is limited by, will, by it's very nature, include more of them. Where do you think we should draw the lines on which Internet famers should be included in this non-paper encyclopedia? McKay 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very valid question and one that isn't easy to answer. I certainly do think that WP:PAPER is as important a part of Wikipedia as anything else. We keep articles on every episode of The Simpsons eventhough no paper encyclopedia would ever do that. Only a very limited number of editors disagree that we should do that. I think the line should be drawn when what we are doing is harmful and disturbing to the individual in question and if including it doesn't add any significant value to the article. To be more clear let me give you a few examples. Creating an article on a serial killer or someone else who comitted a crime will almost always be disturbing and harmful to that person. However, if that person fulfills WP:BIO we should not censor ourselves just because it includes critical sourced information. Suppose someone achieves fame on the internet, voluntarily or not, and the sources used to establish notability states that the person really doesn't mind then I don't think Wikipedia should be the judge of what that person thinks of the attention that he/she has gotten. We do not decide what others should think of themselves and the attention that they have gotten. This is also why I have stayed out of this whole debate until this article showed up. The line should be drawn when, for example, someone is given attention due to something that otherwise wouldn't make that person notable (we don't keep a list of random pretty girls...) and they openly state that the attention is disturbing to them. That's when process becomes unimportant and common sense and decency becomes far more important. Your concern is valid and this problem isn't as black or white as some people want it to be. MartinDK 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your criteria seems a little contradicting. We don't normally keep an article about firefighters, but if one firefighter gets mentioned in the news for something, and gradually gets more famous, and at one point states that the attention is disturbing, do we just throw out the article then? What if he had saved the life of a mayor? Governor? Prime Minister? What I'm saying is that your criteria is very nebulous, and we're better off having a firm solid criteria. McKay 16:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we not intelligent enough for nuance? Can't we be adroit instead of androids? --Ali&#39;i 16:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Athletes: Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports.
 * The compromise is unnecessary. She is notable for two things: her athletic achievements and the Internet attention. She has received multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources for both these things. Therefore, ipso facto, she passes WP:BIO. Nothing else need be taken into account. Walton Assistance!  19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * She is not notable for her athletic achievements. If a bunch of one handed drooling pervs hadn't posted her picture all over teh Interwebs, we'd not even be having this discussion.  She's fourth place in a state championship, won a regional, and broke some age-group records in one state, and had the second-best time in a single year.   That is not notability.  Corvus cornix 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, according to WP:N, it is notable, because those events got covered by independant news sources. So could you please tell us what you think notability is? McKay 20:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability (people) reads:
 * Newsworthy does not necessarily equal notability. But the above is just a guideline not a policy so we're free to discuss it endlessly. Canuckle 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, are you referring to WP:BIO? Maybe you should quote all of the relevant parts:
 * "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards" (emphasis added by me)
 * "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"
 * "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis "
 * "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports."
 * So, it looks to me like she *is* notable via WP:BIO, because she most certainly satisfies the primary notablity criterion. McKay 21:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain how high school athletics is the "highest level in amateur sports"? That really opens the door to an article on every single high school athlete in every sport in the world.  And why stop there?  Every AAU athlete who has ever existed, every amateur athlete in any sport in the world would claim that their organization is as high level as American high school sports.  Corvus cornix 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you misread what I wrote. I'm not saying she's notable because of the highest level in ameteur sports. I'm saying that WP:BIO shows that she is notable, because she meets the primary notability criterion -- "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", so, according to WP:BIO, there's no need for her to be at the highest level in amateur sports. McKay 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So now we have "She's notable because a bored newspaper person wrote about her and another one picked the article up". Existence is not notability, and just having been written about in a newspaper does not automatically make you notable.  If so, where's my article?  Corvus cornix 21:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't like the current notability guidelines. Feel free to comment on the page if you'd like them changed, but the guidelines do say that two seperate newspapers with X as the subject means that X is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you feel that you're notable enough for wikipedia, it's best to have someone else write the article, as otherwise it woudl be a Conflict of Interest McKay 21:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have ignored that portion of the notability guideline which says Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Corvus cornix 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm familiar with that. Triviality in that case refers to how prominently a subject is treated in an article. An article like this one is clearly non-trivial coverage about her, because she is the subject of the article. All but one of the articles currently mentioned on her talk page are with her as the subject. articles like this one are probably considered "trivial" referencings because though she is mentioned, she isn't the focus of the article. So reliable sources that don't have Stokke as the subject can be used in an article for data (like if we wanted to say something like "Stokke vaulted 12 feet at Moorpark High School" this could be a reference, but it shouldn't be used to satisfy the primary notability criterion. The following articles are non-trivial mentionings of her, referenced on her article's page:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * So, this seems to me like she passes WP:BIO very clearly, as there are several published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independant, independant of the subject, they make non-trivial mentionings of her. McKay 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The last two links, at least, should not be used, since they violate the BLP problems which brought about all of this mess. Corvus cornix 22:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that because multiple articles exist about her, she therefore passes the primary notability criterion, and is therefore notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but two of those links (while vaild for establishing notability) shouldn't be sourced in the article, because of BLP concerns? (note that I agree with you 100% on the first part, but I disagree with your application of the BLP policy, but that's probably another matter.) McKay 04:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone just locked this page: please add this to the page for me
Comment: Wikipedia is not meant to be censored. It was bad enough that the Internet phenomena page got wiped out, making Wikipedia the last place to look for information on Internet culture. I was personally upset at that action, but I accepted it because I agree there is a need for reasonable inclusion criteria. Demanding reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability of memes is completely acceptable to me.

So, what now concerns me is that when those criteria are met, with internet memes making front page news in respected US national newspapers, suddenly those inclusion criteria give way to the arbitrary whims of moral crusaders. Wikipedia reflects the world. We have articles for murder and rape. We have articles for the Star Wars Kid, Gary Brolsma, Rufus Hannah; people who didn't want to be famous but became famous anyway, famous for being filmed in humiliating situations. They're famous because people love to watch other people suffer. These people exist in infamy and it's offensive to me to pretend they don't, to bowdlerize Wikipedia and to keep people from discovering the cruel world we live in. I ask these people: please start a "family friendly" fork of Wikipedia if that's what you want, but don't impose your moral standards on Wikipedia itself. 62.31.67.29 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with most of what you write, I'll add it. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is still watching this page..
Just wanted to say that I'd strongly recommend against taking this to deletion review. I don't think there's much more to be said about it. This AFD was nicely framed as "discuss this as an article about an athlete" by nominator Xoloz, and I think Cordesat closed it appropriately in that context. There's been tons of discussion on this, and I don't see how an additional deletion review could shed any additional light on this case. All it could do is turn into a circus. Friday (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bad, it's there. This was one of the most poorly weighted closures I've seen in a long time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know why the page was salted the old way, instead of using protected titles? Not that it matters, but I was a bit curious. -- Ned Scott 09:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just want to say that it's an absolute joke of a closure. I even doubt the closing admin has managed to read WP:BIO, which he decided to use as a delete-stick. In this discussion there were TONS of arguments why this meets WP:BIO. However Coredesat probably didn't read the discussion either.  Grue 
 * Note that the DRV was disruptively closed minutes after listing. Current discussion when it's not being closed down at AN/I and at the relevant Arbcom case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I told you this would happen (my "elite opinion" comment above). It's still a bit depressing because I think Jeff is actually right that the close wasn't as good as it should have been. It should have gone into detail on how the subject meets or fails specific parts of WP:BIO, or, if arguing from first principles, should have done so in substantial detail. Haukur 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard to fault the close for not going into huge detail, I think. It's a 100-word close of a deletion debate about a borderline bio of a high school athlete. Editors are still free to add the athletic achievements to appropriate parts of the encyclopedia, with due attention to weight. --Tony Sidaway 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the desired detail level of a close is more dependent on the debate than on the article itself. Haukur 16:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that there's enough information the closing admin could have made any decision, keep, delete, or no consensus. But frankly, his reasoning was wrong. She most certainly passes WP:BIO. If the closing admin had said "consensus determines that though she passes WP:BIO, she isn't notable", I wouldn't have a defense, but WP:BIO (though only a guideline, and can't override consensus, as per the deletion policy) states the article should remain. Am I wrong in any of my estimations here? McKay 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see how anyone could come to a delete conclusion reading the arguments. But maybe the expectations that the arguments would be read were a bit much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please consider it at least possible that you could be wrong in your assessment that policy does not support deletion and dozens of other people who think it does, or at least that it plausibly could, could be right. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Prove it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Prove the possibility that you might be wrong? Come now! --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right. Prove it.  Prove that there's a reason for me to believe, given the current evidence, that I'm incorrect.  I know you can't do it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, what you're calling "nonsense" above is what I'd call "making an encyclopedia". This is how we do things.  If we had an article on the relevant records, and she qualified, nobody's saying not to put her in there.  But an appropriate one-sentence mention in another article doesn't get magically expanded into "We can have a biography on her."   Friday (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah. I'm interested in making an encyclopedia, not shunting off information we're uncomfortable with to make us feel better about ourselves. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've never understood your aversion to merges, and I don't understand it now. What's wrong with a couple sentences on the relevant record(s), if they exist, in the appropriate article, if it exists?  To me it seems like you're trying to make this about some larger issue, rather than making it about "Does this verifiable information belong in the encyclopedia?  If so, where?"  Friday (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merges don't help the reader, and only end up being frustrating. If people want information on Allison Stokke, they don't care to read about other internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)