Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Bolte


 * 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. Consensus is that GNG is satisfied regardless of whether NMODEL is. ThaddeusB is correct as to why BLP1E doesn't apply here. postdlf (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Audrey Bolte

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E. Other then winning a state title her claim to fame is riding a horse at University. Legacypac (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: There is discussion related to a batch of AFDs, I think all about model articles created by one editor, 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)


 * Somewhat related, new AFDs (but these are for model 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  22:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * delete winning state title is not good enough to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 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 ) 16:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Correction Different list of winners, different year. I only renommined the first 8 off the closed group AfD to start with. This and others have the same problem but are different. Sure would be easier to deal with these in batches, would save DGG from needing to posting the same incorrect message so many times. Legacypac (talk) 18:58, 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 21:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is NOT one of the articles created by one editor said to be a sock/SPA, who created the articles in 8 renominations. This article created by someone else. -- do  ncr  am  05:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There was me thinking you had something better to do .... Clearly not!. – Davey 2010 Talk 05:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. None of "votes" above show any evidence of considering Audrey Bolte specifically, besides the nom itself which mentions her horse-riding.  Google news search on Audrey Bolte linked above yields a number of hits.  Her ditzy answer on some question about women prostitutes as role models was picked up in news coverage, including as far away as this New Zealand article "Top five beauty pageant fails".  Infamy = fame, maybe this makes her notable. -- do  ncr  am  05:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * if this article is kept, that quote has to go in it. Awesome! Legacypac (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG.    WordSeventeen (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as I have just added a number of references from reliable third-party sources, only some of which reference her Pretty Woman gaffe. (Reading the articles, it seems there's a great explanation: the contestants had just seen the movie as a group. Without giving the incident WP:UNDUE weight, it should make for an informative short paragraph in the article.) The article still needs re-writing (and I'm working on that) but sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG are now present. - Dravecky (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that paragraph would be interesting, if the article is kept. I hope pageant organizers take note, and have the ditzes watch Erin Brockovich (film), say, instead.  But, her praising a prostitute as a role model, or being put into a position where she makes such a comment, is not really anything to establish individual article topic notability (not saying you are arguing that). -- do  ncr  am  21:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete I don't see the sources establishing notability.  Like editor Johnpacklambert argues in similar AFD for Ashleigh Lollie, it is not enough if there is coverage in several local news sources, if the person is just being recognized for one event.  The person is not permanently in the news.  And, wp:NMODEL is not met. -- do  ncr  am  21:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NMODEL does not override WP:GNG and the WP:NTEMP guideline explicitly states that notability is not temporary and there is no need for ongoing coverage for a person to be notable. - Dravecky (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is wp:GNG, within the general notability guidelines. But, the more specific guidelines on notability for persons has section wp:ONEEVENT, which applies directly:  a person mentioned for just one event, should be covered in nn article about the event.  I.E., an article about the pageant.  It is a mechanical fact that if there is a beauty pageant whose ostensible purpose is to select a winner, there will be a winner.  That does not make the winner, who is perhaps randomly chosen, herself notable.  Which pageant are we talking about, anyhow?  I am not totally opposed to there being a redirect to Miss Universe or to Miss Universe 2014 or whatever is the corresponding pageant.  It's a different question, at the pageant article, whether it should bother to mention this person, but that can be left to editors there. -- do  ncr  am  23:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any one-event concerns are easily overcome by the fact that she's covered for her participation in the Miss Ohio USA pageant and then, many months later, the Miss USA 2012 pageant. That's two notable events, plus coverage for other activities other than the pageants themselves. That a contest results in a winner is just as true of presidential elections, Super Bowls, and the Academy Awards. Notability is not itself a competition so crossing the threshold is sufficient to prove notability. - Dravecky (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not correct. The winner of a presidential election is always notable for many more things then winning. The winner of the Super Bowl is a team obviously notable long before they win the Super Bowl. An Academy Award requires a carrier far greater than winning a single event pageant. A state level pageant is more on par with the state fair rodeo or a tractor pull then winning the White House. Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject has received significant RS coverage by a variety of publications and the article is in good shape. BLP1E does not apply - the guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news story, not to say we can't have a bio about people known primarily for one thing (which is the vast majority of all notable people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, a good list of reliable sources in the article. Wincent77 (talk) 06:04, 13 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.