Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Anne xavier

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Anne xavier

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[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)

non notable victim of a sad circumstance. All the coverage is at best WP:BLP1E. She is not the first notable burn victim, nor the first to receive the type of care she had, so it's not like a pioneering medical breakthru, but it appears her husband (as disclosed on his and my talk page) insists on creating this and removing the tag, here we are. Aside from not being notable, this is nothing more than a raging advertisement meant to "inspire" per the creators own words. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--lack of secondary coverage proves that this is not a topic for us. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of coverage? over 15 news articles and counting. https://www.google.com/search?q=charlie+anne+xavier&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS940US940&oq=charlie+anne&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j0i20i263i512j0i512l2.1627j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Andrecanada (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Praxdicae. Yes, she has 1 accident, what makes it notable is the Burn Survivor rate, the medical care used on her, is not the first time used, but it is the most sucessful case to date, and there is only 1 documented medical paper on the same treatment, there is public interest in such medical advancemnet, I did not remove the tag, there are other users in favor of the article, there is enough media coverage to sustain her notability, there is enough medical journals to sustain the claims, I have ageed to disclosed my relationship, what also needs to be done ? the article was edit down to just the medical facts. I hope there is some common sense on this discussion, I appreciate eveyones time. Andrecanada (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're having a hard time grasping what notability actually is. WP:42 is a great essay. She simply isn't notable despite your desire for her to be. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles generally require significant coverage. 15 plus news stories, video, magazines, news papers, podcast.

in reliable sources NBC, ABC,People magazine, Cnn, Yahoo news.

that are independent of the topic. Those are indepent news stations.

I am ok if your opnion is that she has no notability, I respect that.

but based on the guidelines the requirements are being met. Andrecanada (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Andrecanada (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a biography, it's a description of an unfortunate but not notable event. Just having reliable sources isn't sufficient for an encyclopedia article. WP:GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I believe this article is covered by WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Schazjmd (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is a burn survivors category on wikipedia!! Andrecanada (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP - With all the records of all the burn survivors, I see that Charlie's case and the story have something to contribute still. All of the information on the references used can tell that this may not be the first one or pioneering but her own journey deserves to be published. Jomztabi (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP Great medical information, and anyone that survive such accident deserves to be here! Smithland2525 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- needs a major rewrite or deletion Asparagusus (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the article shares revelevant facts of interest to the general public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordedition (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - sad story, but there's a difference between local coverage of something like this and reliable sources that confer notability on a broader scale. Plus, the portion regarding the treatment reads like an advertisement, which strikes me as problematic in a big way. I mean, one of them's even got the registered trademark symbol. I reviewed some of the references, and don't see any mention of the specific treatment in the news sources, unless I missed something someplace. Note to closing admin: there are some new editors joining this discussion; at least one has created an account and come straight here. Be advised. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE as she's not "notable" outside of this one single (local) event. Also is a case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. The creation of this article is just an excuse to use Wikipedia as a database for every person that went to the hospital for something and it just happened to make the local news. This would be the same as if I went to the hospital for something and someone decided to write a Wikipedia article about it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the keep arguments seem to be based on WP:ILIKEIT.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to whoever closes this AFD Looks like Andrecanada (who participated in this AFD above) has been blocked indef for socking.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revise that - now ALL the "KEEP" vote!s and the "Keep" vote! have been blocked as a sock farm. 19:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy delete, G5—Created by blocked/banned sockpuppeteer. I would advise an administrator to close this as G5 immediately. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Delete—Obvious notability issues here. On the surface sources seem reliable, but this is a local event, not something that gains coverage from actual news sources. Also, apologies, should have read G5 more carefully. Also NPOV issues; the article reads more like a news article than an encyclopedia article. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not eligible, none of the accounts were blocked at creation. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae—Apologies, the text above has been stricken. A new !vote has been made. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS fails all our notability requirements too. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I came here from an unblock request) The deletion rationales include WP:NOTNEWS and lack of significant coverage (y'all know this by heart) sufficient to meet inclusion requirements. (Oh, I see now Roxy already said this.) I had peaked at this when it was tagged for speedy deletion. My overall feeling then and now is that this is some sort (never before saw the like) of WP:ARTSPAM. (Ah, well there it is in the deletion nomination. I knew there was a WP:COI --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete per mythdon, and Deepfriedokra. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources here are either non-sequiturs, chicken-dinner stories, or (more disgustingly) seem to use her as a prop. At best this is a WP:BLP1E case, and in such cases we err on the side of privacy for the subject and do not have an article on them. To the creator: find somewhere else to write this sort of thing; we do not accept it and our readers HATE "articles" like this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's snowing. Should her case eventually be seen and connected with advancements in burn treatments, an editor who isn't her husband can create it. At the moment, this is a clear BLP1E and there is no evidence to indicate sources could be forthcoming for this otherwise n-n person. Star Mississippi 02:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and BASIC. SN54129 10:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People get burns all the time, she's not much different than the rest of them. Almost sounds like a thinly promotional piece for the humanitarian thing they mention. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and he didn't capitalize her family name properly in the title. Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been at a multitude of titles per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Andrecanada. Star Mississippi 18:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
UTC)
Speedy Delete Is the article a good read? Not really. Is it a waste of server space? Probably. Is it notable in any way at all? No. Is the creator a sock puppeteer and a COI editor, Yes. Basically, delete it under G5 and probably A7. Zippybonzo | talk 18:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The creator wasn't blocked for socking until this AfD started, so G5 is not a valid criterion; it's not retroactive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:Does anyone also feel like this article is getting so much hate towards the burn survivor, just delete the article and be done, but don’t diminish someone’s suffering by saying, people get burned all the time , or this is a chicken dinner story, where is anyones compassion ? I say delete and leave this person’s suffering alone, Shame on anyone being cruel for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvillexpert (talk • contribs) 03:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Sockstrike. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I attacked the sources as chicken-dinner stories, not the article itself. What is your connexion to User:Andrecanada? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cvillexpert: We are all saddened by the ordeal you and your wife have endured. But not everyone who has suffered a horrible ordeal meets inclusion requirements for an encyclopedia article. This is why we discourage people from writing about people with whom they have a close personal relationship. They are too emotionally engaged to be objective. And objectivity is needed in writing an encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:48, 28 April 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.