Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeline Mitchell


 * 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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sing! 10:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Madeline Mitchell

 * – ( 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. Her impressive recovery from a car accident is not notable enough for WP, nor is her planned career teaching elementary school. Legacypac (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as more that 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. ABC News is hardly anybody's "local paper" and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources for multiple events beyond the car accident. Article was created 3.5 years ago by User:TonyTheTiger 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) 11:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Human interest stories about a car accident (even nationally published ones) don't earn you a Wikipedia article. That requires sustained coverage in RS for something significant. And before you comment on the number of deletions I'm posting and calling it bad faith, prove I'm incorrect one by one.  User:DGG says we can't batch these pageant articles 10 days into a long debate with 18 involved editors, so now we have to deal with them one by tedious one. It has been previously established that WP:NMODEL is the best fit for contestants - if not that then what?  Legacypac (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The coverage is because she won various beauty pageants, including Miss Alabama USA, not merely because she was in a car accident. - Dravecky (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep (as page creator) State Beauty pageant winners who have done other things that helpt them achieve GNG should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect - she won exactly one state level contest. Based on that criteria every State fair blue ribbon winner earns a WP article. Its a single event. Fails BLP1E and its of local interest only. Legacypac (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Your state fair ribbon comment is preposterous. The title of 'Miss Alabama' is something once a year to the winner of the state's major beauty pageant not some contest at a state fair....William 16:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:33, 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)
 * Strong keep. She is the winner of a major state beauty pageant. That makes her notable....William 16:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 31 January 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.