Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Black


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ashley Black
prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who commented that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing that set her apart from others in her field. About 700 hits on Google. Mikeblas 03:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, reality show contestants are not inherently notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, reality show contestants are no more notable than contestants on any game show or similar. This individual was already forgotten by the time her article was prodded. Resolute 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Resolute and Zoe and nom. JoshuaZ 06:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge/redirect as with the other non-winners. Models named ashley are inherently non-notable. ~ trialsanderrors 07:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 07:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 10:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Badlydrawnjeff has (unsuccessfully) used the same argument to contest prev. prod/AfD nominations. (See Bre Scullark, Sarah Dankleman, Kari Schmidt and Kathy Hoxit for prev. discussions on the matter. All resulted in a Delete consensus.) Caknuck 19:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing consensus doesn't happen overnight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the show page. -- lucasbfr talk 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Noted reality show contestent.  Known by literally millions of viewers, written about in any contexts regarding the show, and likely in many local papers.  Meets both the letter and spirit of WP:BIO, and no real reason has been given for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not notable, nor memorable, and would fail the 20 year test with years to spare. Redirect to ANTM5 per plenty of precedent, or otherwise Delete. Ohconfucius 04:30, 6 November 2006 (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.