Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Agron (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 redirect to Miss Alaska USA. Numerically, there's only a weak consensus for deletion, but the analysis of the sources speaks for the delete camp being more on-policy, so a clear delete consensus emerges from that. But, redirects are cheap, there's an obvious target, and no reason to hide the history, so that seems like the way to go. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Agron (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 if the user's ban. Legacypac (talk) 14:45, 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:

--doncram 22:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 31 January 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 ) 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I'm not sure how big of a deal these pageants are in other states, but I don't think they are a big deal here in Alaska. I searched Anchorage Dispatch News (formerly Anchorage Daily News, basically th epaper of record for all major events in Alaska) and found no mention of this young lady, or even of the 2015 paegent itself. A redirect to Miss Alaska USA therefore seems like the right level of coverage for WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction I nominated roughtly the first 10 alphabetically by state. If 10 out of 50 is too much, what is the right number? Legacypac (talk) 18:43, 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 This article passes WP:GNG and has notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the only ref currently in use at the article is a link to the pageant's own website and the only external link is a youtube video I am puzzled as to how you came to that conclusion. If you are aware of, say, just one actual reliable source that discusses this young lady please share it with the rest of us. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Beeblebrox In response to your question, I have updated the article with five more references for a total of six. The references can be viewed in the article. There are two television news stories plus several more pageant covering sites. Agron also was Miss Alaska teen in a previous year and that info ha been included with two references. Agron more than meets the notability requirements in Wikipedia:Notability (people). I would ask that those who voted previously to re-read the updated article and re-consider your votes. WordSeventeen (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Alaska USA with no prejudice against creating a proper article if reliable sources can be found. The current "article", however, if not worth keeping. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep after article improvements by WordSeventeen. There still isn't a lot of content, but at least there are sources now. A history preserving redirect would be my second choice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Total lack of sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the two references that are not primary do not have significant coverage of this subject. The TV "interview", all 2'34" of it, consists of things like "the pageant was totally awesome". I don't recommend it, I took one for the team. Vrac (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at them as well and I fully agree. One of them basically says "this happened" and the other is morning talk show fluff. Fine for WP:V but noit compelling as far as notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs like this are not RS, nor significant coverage (just part of a long list). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Legacypac The diff you have listed above saying it it only a blog and "not RS" this is in FACT a company website of Pageant Rocks "Pageant Rocks is a full-service pageant consulting & mentoring firm" [2] I guess maybe you were confused because the name of the firm happened to use the word "pageant"? I always try to act wiith AGF, so you just made a mistake in your misrepresentation of that source. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does being a "pageant consulting & mentoring firm" make it a reliable source? From WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This source does not meet that criteria. Indiscriminately adding corporate websites that mention the subject does not assist in establishing notability. Vrac (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WordSeventeen not only is this blog not a RS it is clearly just backed by one guy that likes pageants and fancies himself to be an expert. 07:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

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.