Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Tang

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 of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tang

Delete - Vanity RidG Talk 05:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as not notable enough, flash in the pan. May not be vanity article as events are well documented. In short, her parents died of cancer; she was featured in a human interest, rise above adversity story on Good Morning America and was given a hollywood whirlwind tour. See here. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's definitely not a vanity page. However before I vote keep or delete, I'd like to know why she isn't notable while Jason McElwain is (or if they're both notable or not). Yes, right now, J-Mac is extremely notable, but just to humor me, compare this version of the article with Tang's article, back when the two had seemingly similar flash-in-the-pan statuses (or statii). hateless 06:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll bite. Some may find her current notability enough while others won't. That's up to you. There certainly are differences between the two presently; a movie is being made about him, etc. But you want us to compare in the past. Without studying that article's past history, and going with the idea that there was a point in time when he was at the same point in his notability status as she is now, at that point in time I would have voted similarly. We can't look at a person's future for notability in the present, nor should we base our decisions on conjecture, and it is of no moment if 20/20 hindsight shows that if a deleted article was kept, if only we had had our prognostication hats on, it would have been the "correct" action. This is why we have a policy against crystalballism. If, in the future, she becomes more notable, then that future article will get a keep vote from me. Or if someone points out more current bases of notability here, I might change my decision. This is by no means an easy delete decision.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject is borderline WP:BIO and in my opinion falls on the short end. I also agree with Fuhghettaboutit... previous versions of Jason McElwain would have elicited a deletion opinion from me, though obviously the current version of said article makes a good case for inclusion. If at some future point Ms. Tang becomes the subject of a movie, or becomes a successful author, etc. the article could always be brought back via deletion review or started again from scratch.--Isotope23 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable (WP:BIO). Not even close. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of such stories in the US every year (hard beginnings, pick-themselves-up-by-the-bootstraps character, reward). None of them are notable. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --Starionwolf 04:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ted. AgentPeppermint 22:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is it possible to receive some media attention and still not be notable? Sure it is, and here's proof! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Skinnyweed 23:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Someone started a second AfD debate after someone removed the AfD tag - that debate has been closed as this one is still open. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- banality. Self-promoting sob story. Lots of kids have lost both parents and some still want to be doctors. Most kids dream big and end up achieving much less than the fame that they seek. --Paul from Michigan 17:29, 1 July 2006 (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.