Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. I have accepted the draft Let's go, Brandon, as many commenters here have advocated. I see no consensus between whether this meets WP:BLP1E or if Stavast met WP:GNG due to coverage unrelated to that event. As so many of the comments are now-offtopic, I am closing this: no prejudice against speedy re-nomination. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelli Stavast

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Kelli Stavast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable motorsports pit reporter. No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable/independent sources. There has been some RECENTISM in the press, but even that has consisted of trivial mentions of her doing her job, which one is not notable simply for doing. Fails NBASIC GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC). Also see Beccaynr's delete !vote below. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Non-notable. It takes more than just being a reporter to warrant having a Wikipedia article. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a "Let's Go Brandon" article Non-notable. It takes more than just being a reporter to warrant having a Wikipedia article. Although she is non-notable, the "Let's Go Brandon" thing has become a meme and is notable as per the most recent sourcing. I support covering "Let's Go Brandon" the way we do other memes such as Pepe the Frog or Distracted boyfriend... we recognize that simply being responsible for a meme does not warrant an article for the creator. Rather, we refer to the person responsible for the meme in the meme's article. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as her interview with Brandon, and the popularity she gained as a result, should receive some coverage on Wikipedia. The "Let's Go Brandon" catch phrase continues to be popular, with media outlets covering this week and in the past 24 hours. Stub articles are allowed on Wikipedia. She also has a career of almost 20 years. Are any of her other interviews or news reports notable? If so, they should be listed on her Wikipedia article. --LABcrabs (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @RayUPRM1998: welcome to Wikipedia, and please sign your comments with "~~~~" SaltySaltyTears (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as "Let's go Brandon" information is allowed in the article. Her page has been up for over a year. The only reason it is nominated for deletion is because the leftist Wikipedia gatekeepers do not want articles unflattering to Joe Biden and other Democrats. It's the same old story, it's all over the place on Wikipedia, as pointed out by the inventor of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. Sourcing for anything unflattering to Democrats is never good enough. First of all, only left-wing sources are allowed. Then, if the left-wing sources do include something unflattering to Democrats, it is still not good enough for some other BS reasons. JimmyPiersall (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ASPERSIONS. Also see the fact that I also nominated three other pit reporters who had nothing to do with the political crap for the same rationale as this article. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Knock it off with the partisanship, please... you might consider actually practicing some of that "assume good faith" you claim you practice on your user page. I am a Trump voter, I think Biden is a disaster for the country, and I fully support the removal of this and other articles about non-notable people... it is not just a "leftist" thing. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The inclusion of the recently-popular meme in this BLP does not appear supported by policy, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and not a tabloid, particularly for a WP:MINORASPECT of a subject's career. Based on my research, there also appears to be insufficient sourcing available to support the WP:BASIC or WP:JOURNALIST notability criteria for a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are four RSes cited for the article topic here, so this passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG - multiple, independent sources with significant depth. Any reading otherwise strikes me as highly suspect. She isn't just mentioned in the articles, they all include her as a topic in the headline. This is basically just checking the sources and counting. Is it more than one? Yes, there's four. Are they reliable? Yes. So it passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. WP:JOURNALIST is additional criteria mentioned in the notability of people: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. The "Let's Go Brandon" discussion is a red herring. This is just verifying and counting sources, all of which existed prior to the meme. - Scarpy (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe Beccaynr's source assessment is fair and sans other RS appearing not related to the Brandon event, it should be deleted. - Scarpy (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] - This basically just explains that she's married. Where's the SIGCOV in that? [2] - This is a press release from her employer (not independent of the subject) briefly stating that she will be working NASCAR races. [3] - This is from her Alma Mater, also not independent. That leaves this [4] ; which, sure, you can use to pull information on jobs she's worked, but how does that make her notable? The article would end up looking like Marty Snider's; that is, a directory.
GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment - I developed a source assessment table for the sources in the article, with my interpretation of their support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
NASCAR Pit Reporter Kelli Stavast Shares Sunset Proposal Story, “Timeless” Ring Details (The Knot, 2016) ~ Based primarily on statements of the subject, WP:SECONDARY context introduces the subject and commentary is limited to anticipation of the wedding. No Terms of use includes "THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED FOR ENTERTAINMENT, EDUCATIONAL, AND PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES ONLY." This is not a journalistic or academic source. ~ Based primarily on statements of the subject, WP:SECONDARY context introduces the subject and commentary is limited to anticipation of the wedding. ✘ No
Marty Snider, Kelli Stavast added to NBC's NASCAR on-air team (NBCSports, 2014) No This is a press release from the employer of the subject Yes ~ 2 sentences about her past career in addition to the announcement. ✘ No
The Life of a Racing Pit Reporter: Kelli Stavast (Frontstretch, 2019) Yes A mix of interview and WP:SECONDARY context Yes About Us section of the website indicates a news structure exists. ~ A mix of interview and WP:SECONDARY context, with commentary that appears related to pit reporting generally, not the subject. ~ Partial
Kelli Stavast ’02 Takes on Olympic Assignment for NBC (Chapman University, 2018) No Alumni magazine interview with alumni Yes ~ Mostly based on quotes from the subject. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Beccaynr (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I mostly agree with Beccaynr here. - Scarpy (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One person posted here that a reason to delete it that supposedly the sources of the news stories are considered unreliable by Wikipedia. There’s enough evidence of the story to convince a jury that it happened if such could be necessary. And so I would suggest that if all the sources that are publishing this story and it’s increasing aftermath are considered unreliable, then we have a problem on Wikipedia. Perhaps instead of claiming that we should locate reliable sources? This incident is gaining Notoriety by the day. Perhaps at a minimum we should pause any decision on this and see what transpires over the next several months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagofscrews (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC) — Bagofscrews (talk • contribs) has made few (about 10 as of this date) or no other edits outside this topic, which could be simply due to this user being new. (bagofscrews); [reply]
    My rationale for deletion has nothing to do with any recent incidents. Please see this this and this, all nominated by myself on the same day for the same rationale. Also, please do not add your own commentary to the templates that other editors are placing. All of us should be assuming good faith here; you do not need to explain yourself. Anyone is able to look at your edit history. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LABcrabs. That meme alone is her claim to fame, it's being widely reported about.

If it's newsworthy for the BBC, The Independent, Newsweek, The Spectator, and others, it's notable here.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58878473
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/maga-lets-go-brandon-meme-biden-b1938322.html
https://www.newsweek.com/lets-go-brandon-meme-explained-1637434
https://spectator.org/lets-go-brandon
https://www.businessinsider.com/lets-go-brandon-chant-origin-video-what-does-it-mean-2021-10
https://www.the-sun.com/news/3849893/what-does-lets-go-brandon-meme-mean
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article255093152.html
https://tennesseestar.com/2021/10/18/joke-anti-biden-song-lets-go-brandon-goes-viral-tops-itunes-hip-hop-chart
tickle me 07:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those address the subject of this article directly and in great detail (I refuse to give The Sun a click since it is a deprecated source.). They all cover a political meme, at least some of which do so with a great amount of bias, and some of which don't even include this subject's name. @Tickle me: try again, and next time don't use obviously biased sources like The American Spectator. Seriously, get that bullshit out of here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BIASED "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." From looking at the reliable sources noticeboard, it does not seem anyone has ever raised an objection to American Spectator. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources noted above may be relevant to a Deletion review of the Fuck Joe Biden AfD that closed as a snowball delete on September 27, 2021, but the sources that clear WP:RSP (or would need attribution due to apparent bias) also help demonstrate the risk of a WP:COATRACK here, and WP:BLP policy concerns. It looks a bit like WP:ATTACK to keep an otherwise unsupported BLP, based only on this incident, e.g. Why are MAGA supporters chanting ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ to mock Democrats? (The Independent, October 14, 2021, "the blip is being used as an example by Trump supporters of how certain outlets bend the truth. “The reporter just lies,” said one user under the viral video."), How 'Let's go Brandon' became an anti-Biden conservative heckle (BBC, October 12, 2021, "Some conservatives view Ms Stavast's attribution of the Biden chant as yet another example of the media covering up for and protecting Biden by downplaying what they view as the depth of the president's unpopularity."). I think a four-sentence article about "a hip-hop mash-up of the chanting crowd" (Tennessee Star, October 18, 2021) also helps show the WP:COATRACK, and the lyrics of the recent song appear to support the concern noted above about WP:ATTACK, e.g. "Tried to cover up, but tell the people, go Brandon" (Miami Herald, October 18, 2021, also reporting "The reporter misheard the chants as “Let's Go Brandon,”). I think the WP:COATRACK essay offers a helpful overview of several challenges related to using this BLP as a hook for tangential subjects. Beccaynr (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The speedwaydigest.com source is labeled "NBC Sports PR" and appears to be a press release. Heavy.com recycles the Frontstretch source already in the Wikipedia article, adds a non-independent link and information from her employer, her Instagram, various references to past "Fuck Joe Biden" chants, and a link and information from her alumni magazine - this is churnalism, and the reliance on the same and similar sources that do not sufficiently support WP:BASIC as outlined above, similarly does not add further support for notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment Based on the sources, including as discussed above re: WP:ATTACK concerns, WP:R#DELETE#3 may apply to attempts to redirect Stavast to either of the articles suggested above, and possibly WP:G10. Beccaynr (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning really gets to the heart of the issue. Nobody suggested any article needs to be an "attack" on a BLP. We have sources deriding the chant. Unfortunately,some editors are more concerned with the subject than they are willing to incubate a suitable neutral article. Any mention of Fuck Joe Biden or Let's Go Brandon are too easily dismissed (AFDs, redirects, and removal of mentions on sight) when there appears to be notability based on commentary by Business Insider, Forbes, and the BBC. Yes, it is a difficult subject, but the hesitancy to give it a go is astonishing. I'll keep on working in my sandbox, but I don't even know where to begin bringing it for review.Globgenie (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glogenie That is my point, which I should have clarified better. An article with the title "Lets Go Brandon" or "Fuck Joe Biden" does not in any way need to be an attack page, because the article is specifically about the meme and chant, and can be sourced, and proven to be a real phenomenon. That does not meet the definition of WP:Attack. By definition, it would only be an attack page would be if the article said something down the line of "Fuck Joe Biden, he is the worst president ever." That would be a personal attack, and completely unsourced and not actually about any specific entity. This [proposed] article on the other hand is about a chant/meme, which as someone else said below, has reached critical mass and now meats WP:Notability standards. After all, there is even a "Lets Go Brandon" song that is number one oh hip hop charts and number two on all songs right now in the United States. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My discussion above about how WP:ATTACK applies here is related to Stavast, based on how the sources and the song appear to include disparagement of her. Beccaynr (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic discussion
Globgenie, you can review Help:Your first article for more information. Beccaynr (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't create it in good faith, though. There are multiple discussions across multiple AFDs, redirects, and talk pages. Put it up for review and notify each page? Even where to put the information is going to be argued about, even if it is deemed that it is noteworthy.Globgenie (talk)
I think it is beyond the scope of this AfD to discuss this issue in-depth here, but I did add a Welcome template with a list of links and resources to your Talk page. Also, as noted above, a Draft:Let's Go Brandon! article has been created by TheStrayDog, so maybe you can work together. Beccaynr (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I added my draft to the talk page at Draft talk:Let's Go Brandon! since I did not want to remove TheStrayDog's work if my structure was awkward.Globgenie (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not entertained?!? Draft:Let's Go Brandon! Just saying it is coming along pretty nicely, IMHO. It would be better if this article was kept so the articles could link to each other, @Mrschimpf:, @SaltySaltyTears:, and @Beccaynr:, Any help on grammar wouldn't hurt... Globgenie (talk)
Comment Please don't use the ping system to pressure editors/be a wiseacre. My only concern is with this article right here. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not presume to tell me what to do. I was kind of stoked a picture was fit in because, you know, BUILDING THE FUCKING PROJECT. But, no worries if you want to be a stick in the mud. Not my problem. But PING anyways (since there is absolutely zero rules against it, buddy) @Mrschimpf: Maybe if editors were, you know, arguing in good faith I would feel bad. I just put it where I thought it belonged anyways. I suppose you can find it on your own to AfD it. Globgenie (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NASCAR on NBC. Kelli Stavast is not notable. The sources just aren't there. At the time of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck Joe Biden discussion, the sources weren't there, but there very well appear to be sources to make that article subject notable now. That, however, is a separate discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have absolutely no issue with the content of the article; it's right on par for a sports reporter 'in the trenches' and she's done many other assignments for NBC outside of NASCAR/IndyCar. The sourcing works fine for me (but as always, can be improved). But there shouldn't be any deletion consideration, and as I've raised on the Brandon Brown article, the issue broached about the phrase doesn't really involve her outside of trying to save an interview going downhill because of the crowd yelling something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the race, nor any of her actions; they were going to do that no matter who was holding the mic or in victory lane, and should it be broached in the article, should be carefully and appropriately sourced (which is why I asked for protection so this could be navigated carefully). To anyone here without AfD experience; redirecting to a meme title is not going to end up being the result here, because it's a WP:BLP article, and the subject does have an employer that this can be redirected to (specifically, List of NASCAR on NBC broadcasters#Current staff). Nor do we create a new article based on a deletion discussion. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As one of those who advocate the creation of a new article as part of our !vote here, I am completely aware that new articles are not created as a result of deletion discussion. I, and others, are simply outlining our thinking and preferred course of action, realizing that not all of it will or can be done here. Such things are very common in AfDs. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a simple clarification; as we have the 'not a ballot' template on this nom, it's likely accounts unfamiliar with the AfD process will ask if this can happen, thus a reminder of common past outcomes is required. Nate • (chatter) 06:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets a level of notability that passes my muster. We should also un-Delete the Fuck Joe Biden or add Let's Go Brandon as a stand alone article. The meme or chant has reached critical mass. In order for the English Wikipedia to be taken seriously, we should not become a place where you don't get a full and balanced view on a topic. Many left-leaning gatekeepers are making our little experiment of creating and maintaining a free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. As my Mom used to say, "It's a mighty thin pancake that doesn't have two sides." Whoisjohngalt (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Whoisjohngalt (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Thank you anonymous editor who claims I've been canvassed into this discussion. You are correct, but I've been monitoring the discussion and deciding if I should add my thoughts. The canvas nudged me into the conversation that I was going to join anyway.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You do know she'll never earn any proceeds from the sale of this "unofficial merchandise", right? And the merchandise will likely never have her name attributing the words to her. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the "Let's Go Brandon" content is no longer in the article, I see no argument for keeping this article. There are lots of sayings you can find emblazoned on a coffee cup or t-shirt that are not considered notable by Wikipedia standards. The shelf life for a meme is about two weeks so no one will be talking about this by Thanksgiving. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see how well this comment ages. Can't wait for Thanksgiving! Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AfD pages are not Reddit. Please don't use it as such. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was implying that I disagreed with the user that coverage would not be enduring. Have you quit your job as a puppet master for good to join the AfD Police Force? Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for citing a guideline and clarifying your objection. And yes, I have been reformed and have returned, and do spend most of my time here dealing with vandalism and other assorted jackassery such as yours. A man needs a hobby. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but don't add a "Let's go, Brandon!" section or create a "Let's go, Brandon!" article. Stavast is, in my opinion, a significant individual. If she were a lowly local personality, it would be different. I think this article is just in need of some TLC. Maybe an expansion on the time she asked that athlete about their dead parent in a "Controversies" sub-heading. Some people comparable to Kelli Stavast are Dave Burns and Mike Massaro. Based on precedence, I do not believe this article should be deleted. Furthermore, I believe the claims of non-notability may be misplaced. Non-notable people are usually absolute nobodies, like you and me. Stavast is an accomplished sports-news personality. In closing, I think that the "Let's go, Brandon!" phenomena should be disregarded in this article, as it was one line she said to save the parents at home from having to explain to the kids what the crowd was chanting. The phrase is completely unrelated to her except that she was the first person to say it; the meanings and usage are completely different now. Likewise, I don't think that a "Let's go, Brandon!" article should be created, but if you want to, there is little stopping you. Js22003 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How could anyone possibly know what her intent was when she hasn’t made a statement about the incident yet? 2600:1700:1111:5940:5092:677C:8E13:A31D (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic, see e.g. WP:TDLI
I try to improve the encyclopedia when things are brought to my attention. I only became aware of this article due to my practice of fighting vandalism using the Huggle program which alerted me to probable vandalism. I have to say I resent your implication and your unwillingness to assume good faith, and I wish you would knock it off.SaltySaltyTears (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! I resent your implication and and your unwillingness to assume good faith. I wish YOU would knock it off. I don't even know you, I wasn't even replying to you, and I am just highlighting what I think is important to note. I also try to improve things here at Wikipedia. I've been doing so since 2005. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TuckerResearch:, YOU knock it off. You have absolutely zero business questining my motives, when you failed to participate in any of the other AfD's I started. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Take your personal attacks and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol chill Ghost Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop your attacks, too. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has a potty-mouth. I'm not even talking to you here. I have never been "questining" your motives either. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
double !vote, off-topic, see e.g. WP:TDLI
  • Reaffirm Keep -- So SaltySaltyTears thinks it is off-topic to make a statement pointing out the 'elephant-in-the-room' obvious fact that nobody wanted to delete this article until the whole Brandon/Biden thing became an issue? That is risible, and then going so far as to actually conceal it, when it should factor into everyone's consideration. Such a tactic is entirely transparent and disingenuous at best. It is rather the most important thing to recognize about this AfD that would otherwise not be taking place on an article that was undisputed for more than a year, until the week of the 'Brandon' incident. - JGabbard (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hatted the discussion above [6] and added a link to a section in the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay as a way to explain the WP:REFACTOR noted in the edit summary. Beccaynr (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JGabbard: I'm going to ping people every time they try to claim to know my motives behind this specific AfD and point out these other AfDs that I started that you didn't bother to participate in (psychological projection at work??? Nah, couldn't be!). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASCAR lore, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Burns (sportscaster), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marty Snider and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vince Welch] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt that woke-e-pedia will allow a "Let's go brandon Article" even if it is notable enough. 148.64.29.27 (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kelli_Stavast&oldid=1137967793"