Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrienne Murphy


 * 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   keep. postdlf (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Adrienne Murphy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Won national pageant from a significant sized country, that seems to always be sufficient?--Milowent • hasspoken  04:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not when a Google Test only gives 31500 hits, including several namesakes, social media and doubles. The Banner talk 08:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a poor WP:BEFORE, I'm afraid.--Milowent • hasspoken 10:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And that is a very poor argument to bring up when you disagree. The Banner talk</i> 11:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never seen an argument that 30,000+ google hits is a sign of lack of notability; but its not really a good argument by itself for notability either. Of course its actual articles about the subject that guide WP:GNG, and why this subject to be shown to be notable.  You're going to "lose" this AfD so I'm fairly comfortable calling you out for being hasty with this nomination, in addition to others like Articles for deletion/Anastasia Chernova.  I do really appreciate editors who ferret out bad non-notable BLPs for AfD, that is good work, but just nominating a bunch of national pageant winners wasn't really a cool move.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  12:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Those links included several namesakes. I did not look how many links belong to the contestant, but on checking I found out that it were only 252 unique hits. Still for all namesakes. And contrary to what you claim, I was not randomly nominating contestants. I did look up if they had an interesting number of Google hits and nominated the selectively the ones with low to very low numbers. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm saying it was not a great method here. I've spent a few minutes adding more cites to the article, I think you can withdraw the nomination.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 13:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Still you have WP:ONEEVENT that is applicable. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Come on now. Don't even.  There's no harm in saying "yeah I was wrong about this one, thanks for finding sources and improving the article."--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  17:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact I expect a sorry from you for ignoring the fact that there are so few sources and that she was known for participating in just one event. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * DIG DIG DIG. Its ok friend.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  21:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Winning a national beauty pageant is usually grounds for inclusion. Sources here and here and here suggests she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep based on past outcomes and growing consensus that Miss Universe contestants are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Growing consensus among who? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep there are a number of sources available and raw Google hit counts have nothing to do with our notability standard. I think beauty pageants are better characterised as awards than as a single event, and our guidelines are much more generous to people mainly known for winning an award.  Hut 8.5  21:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable, does not fails notability. Bdboyc (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Another bad faith Nom. This nominator should be banned from making such nominations.  Wholesale they are overwhelming to reply to.  As expressed in other Noms I'm trying to chase, each of these are notable for two events, for this one;  Miss Universe Ireland 2012 and appearance at Miss Universe 2012 pageant. Trackinfo (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.