Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Fletcher (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 delete. There is no policy/guideline-supported consensus that notability is satisfied here. The individual's pageant win does not satisfy subject-specific notability guidelines, and the only sources offered are contemporaneous reports of that win. postdlf (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [1] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation of the user's ban.[2] Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

--doncram 22:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep because the nominator fails to give a reason for deletion. The nominator only brings up WP:DENY and if the article fails that, then he has no rationale....William 15:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, wp:DENY does apply, right? Or at least you have not disagreed with that. And, the nominator did link to previous nomination, where they argue that the subject does not meet wp:NMODEL. I kinda think the nmodel reasoning could have been explicitly stated here, too, but they did link, and it did save space, and it is valid reasoning, in addition to the wp:DENY reasoning. --doncram 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the Group AfD where there are a bunch of good reasons stated by a bunch of editors over a 10 day period. This article would have been deleted except that the closing admin wanted the names dealt with one by one. So, this article fails all WP inclusion criteria just like all the the sister articles of other contestants in the same Miss USA contest in the same year. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment 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 the way these are being done 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 ) 16:09, 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]
• Keep Meets and passes WP:GNG WordSeventeen (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, what reliable source, if any, do you mean supports this article? For anything going over one event? I note your similar vote rationale at others in this batch, without substantial support provided. --doncram 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stand by my vote here and at any other AFD's. The article passes WP:GNG. There is more than one event, and more than one reference with verifiable reliable sources. I will not be bullied regarding my vote. I have provided substantial support regarding my vote. You are mistaken Doncram. WordSeventeen (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more WP:ROUTINE mentions of the same event does not solve the problem. You have not supported your vote to keep. Legacypac (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WordSeventeen - Stating Keep without providing a source doesn't hold much weight here so thus it may end up being disregarded altogether by the closing admin, No one's bullying you we're simply helping you out...... –Davey2010^Talk 15:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per John Pack Lambert's comment in the similar Ashleigh Lollie AFD (linked above), that this person is not in the news in any permanent way, there is just the one event. I agree, there's no indication this person is in the news for anything more than one event. I don't see substantial coverage in the article, or in the Google News search linked above. It would not suffice if her winning a state-wide crown was reported in several local papers. It won't change if there's local coverage of her appearing at local events, as part of the one-year "reign" as Miss whatever is her title. It's still one event; it's appropriate to draw the line that this level does NOT merit coverage in an encyclopedia. Also she does not meet wp:NMODEL, per the nomination. --doncram 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sources already in the article are reliable and sufficient to establish notability, IMO. BLP1E does not apply as it is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news stories, not prevent bios of people know only for one thing (which is the vast majority of notable people). ROUTINE is a section of the event notability guidelines. There is no consensus is applies to people, nor would I consider the coverage here routine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This person has a passing presence that will prevent us from keeping the article up to date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per Wikipedia's main Notability guideline, "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) 22:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Insufficient sourcing to pass WP:BIO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:26, 15 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.