Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Allen


 * 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. Subject is found to meet the requirements at WP:GNG. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 22:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Holly Allen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a SOCK farm link and junk building effort. (Clarify that the sockmaster has been found to encourage subjects to create articles about themselves or have connected people do it. This appears to be created by the article subject herself. ) Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in November 2011 by User:Halen6 who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is evident this user did not even look at the article and is copy pasting the same attack against me. The group nomination was consensus delete but User:DGG decided to keep based on an opinion about how bundling should be done. Please look at this article on its merits, or complete lack thereof. "Fremont County’s Community News Stream" talking about her speaking at a Rotary meeting does not establish notability, and neither does the home page of corporate promoter sites do much for us.  Legacypac (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for pointing out the creator of Holly Allen is Hallen6 who only edited this article and the related one for the title, including introducing copyvio twice. I can't see any possible self-promotion or corporate promotion going on here, and no possible connection between Holly Allan and Hallen6.

Legacypac (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For my part, I am quite comfortable with calling this a COI. The three personal shots in the article were all submitted by Hallen6, and one of them -- [[File:Holly_Allen,_2011.jpg]] -- has under Source "My camera," and under Author, "Holly Allen."   Ravenswing   04:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:34, 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 ) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete: As far as Dravecky's heated Keep arguments go, I just looked back at his cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. He made the first one at 6:43.  The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes.  He cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith. Examining the article on the actual merits, I agree with the nom that there are none. There are only two sources listed, the second one being a broken link, and the first one being (a) an obvious press release, which (b) is the sort of ephemeral coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE, and (c) is to county10.com, "Fremont County’s Community News Stream," with no indication as to how it might qualify as a reliable source under WP:RS.  In any event, a single source, even if it were a 5,000 word article in the New York Times, does not qualify under the GNG, and I could find no others: "Holly Allen" + Wyoming turned up a goose egg on Highbeam, which is unusual ... you'd think that a name as common as "Holly Allen" would turn up something in a state even as small as Wyoming.  I would be happy to hear from Dravecky as to what sources he was referring when he claimed that the subject "meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG."   Ravenswing   04:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I have researched and added two more verifiable reliable sources to this article. There are now a total of four references including a newspaper, two radio station news sites as well as a news stream site. With references across numerous verifiable and reliable sources this article passes WP:GNG. Also, I have researched numerous of the beauty pageant AFD subjects that this nominator put up in 2-3 minutes apart. I have easily found numerous verifiable reliable sources quite easily for every one I have researched by simply typing the names in google. It really strains my WP:AGF to believe that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE before nominating all these articles for AFD.    WordSeventeen (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: For my part, I'd like to know where these verifiable, reliable sources which supposedly pass the GNG are. One of the citations you added was a broken link, and I questioned whether you looked at it at all before just cutting-and-pasting it in.  The other is (a) a blatant press release of (b) only two paragraphs which (c) doesn't discuss the subject in any detail, let alone the "significant detail" the GNG requires: the only two sentences which mention the subject at all are "Holly Allen of Lander was crowned Miss Wyoming USA®" (yes, closing admin, the trademark symbol was in the press release) and "Holly and Sydney will each receive thousands of dollars in prizes and awards."  When added to the broken link already of the four sources in the article? I've no objection to trying to source the article; I've big objections to adding junk sources and declaring that the one who didn't do his job here was the nominator.   Ravenswing   05:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I did not add a broken link. It was working when I checked it. In bad faith you Ravenswing said, "I questioned whether you looked at it at all before just cutting-and-pasting it in." That is pure bad faith. I changed the link in the reference - the source website looks to have changed indexing of the stories. The story was there all along. The internet and websites are like that at times.  AGF is always better than bad faith.     WordSeventeen (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG with multiple citations in reliable, third-party sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject meets WP:GNG per reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge - sourcing is probably sufficient to meet the GNG, but given the minimal content a merge to Miss Wyoming USA would be equally viable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 18 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.