Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Golebiewski (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   keep. postdlf (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ashley Golebiewski
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination  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) 14:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Related discussion is at Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:


 * 1) Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie (2nd nomination)
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Kimberly Agron (2nd nomination)
 * 3) Articles for deletion/Talyah Polee (2nd nomination)
 * 4) Articles for deletion/Ashley Golebiewski (2nd nomination)
 * 5) Articles for deletion/Renee Bull (2nd nomination)
 * 6) Articles for deletion/Lizzy Olsen (2nd nomination)
 * 7) Articles for deletion/Ashleigh Lollie (2nd nomination)
 * 8) Articles for deletion/Brooke Fletcher (2nd nomination)


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


 * 1) Articles for deletion/Audrey Bolte
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Brittany Wiser
 * 3) Articles for deletion/Jillian Wunderlich
 * 4) Articles for deletion/Michelle Leonardo


 * -- do ncr  am  22:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Besides the Facebook source currently in the article, and presumably pageant-related websites, there's this newspaper article in Middletown Press, a general newspaper, found from Google news search link above. I don't know if it adds up to enough coverage yet, or not.  Maybe there's more.  Can someone search any database including more Connecticut newpapers? -- do  ncr  am  02:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Miss Connecticut 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) 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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) 05:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete Total lack of sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep @Doncram I have updated this article to include four references from reliable sources. The sources can be viewed in the article. They include sources from two different newspapers plus some other sources. Having numerous different sources this article subject achieves notability.     WordSeventeen (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - A few local paper articles about a single local event do not constitute sufficient coverage. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  02:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements to article. Artw (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as earlier improvements (plus some improvement and expansion I have just completed) push this subject over the verifiability and notability thresholds for WP:GNG. - Dravecky (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per current refs. Earflaps (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2015 (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.