Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie (2nd nomination)

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. Defaults to keep. Nakon 02:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Guthrie

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renominate for deletion per rational and consensus at [1] Doing individual nominations as per User:DGG. Legacypac (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: Related discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:

Related, new AFDs (for articles started by different editors) are:

--do ncr am 20:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups this way is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, ~~All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests,~~ No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone let me know when this complete and utter flood of AFDs for barely notable (if at all) bikini-wearing trivialities (Take this as a Delete 'em all vote) has gone away so it's safe to follow the Fashion AFD page again? Mabalu (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is the focus of in depth coverage by reliable third-party sources, including WP:GNG. - Dravecky (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

You mean "In depth coverage" from a local paper called Tuscaloosa News [2] that currently lists these routine stories as must reads? "Bibb County scores game's lone basket in 2-0 win over Brookwood-New park in Northport to provide a hidden urban oasis-Girl, 4, dies in house fire in Duncanville-Pulitzer Prize-winner Rick Bragg to speak Feb. 11 at University of Alabama" type and where today's top story is that Girl Scout Cookies just arrived in town [3] the paper does some good work but
WP:BIO Legacypac (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, most newspapers carry a wide variety of stories, such as "Shops Prepare for Tie-Ins to ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ Film" and "Texas Chili Makes a Welcome Guest" currently on the main page of the online edition of WP:ROUTINE. - Dravecky (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The point is coverage in a local paper does not establish notability for WP, and those articles don't support WP articles either.
WP:ROUTINE specifically says "This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award)" which is exactly what a local person winning a award (crown/title/sash whatever) at a pageant is. Legacypac (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This article has numerous references to third party reliable sources. Passes
WP:GNG as well, the subject has achieved notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Sufficient reliable source coverage exists (and is included in the article) to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even her two points of note are not enough. In 50 years we will still have no more recent information than that she is a community college student. We need to limit articles to people who we can keep current information on, and she is not one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I may quote
WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." - Dravecky (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Routine coverage of a local person winning an award is not 'significant coverage'. An entertainer or
WP:NMODEL would be the subject of ongoing coverage - which this subject is not. Legacypac (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
You're stating opinion. I'm quoting an actual guideline. - Dravecky (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am Quoting
WP:ROUTINE. A local person winning an award is the second example given. Your total and repeated misrepresentation of both the guidelines and other user's points is unsettling. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Madison Guthrie is not an event; she is a person. She is covered by Wikipedia:Notability (people), not the one about events. - Dravecky (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

For an Admin your misrepresentation of policy is scary. If I spot you doing this again I will do something about it. The event is ROUTINE and limited notability. If you can't find more then routine coverage of the event including the winner it fails. I believe that all the delete votes on the previous AFD should be considered as that one was closed against concensus on a procedural opinion. There was even a debate about the closure but the Admin insisted on relisting. If the closer does not consider that concensus the people who participated should all be notified so they can participate here. Same goes for the related linked AFDs. 18 editors participated before but far fewer here, and with bad application of policy. Legacypac (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, asI understand it the policy applying the equivalent of ROUTINE to BLP is BLP1E. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a
WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened This AFD was closed by a non-administrator and then re-opened by that person, upon my request, as I felt it didn't meet criteria for
wp:NAC(?) non-admin closure. I mention this because I am voting below, after that. --do ncr am 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect, probably to
wp:anchor in her row in the table. --do ncr am 18:29, 11 February 2015 (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/Madison_Guthrie_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138043688"