Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison McKinley


 * 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. ignoring the single purpose accounts here, consensus shows she fails WP:GNG. Secret account 01:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Madison McKinley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Why the page should be deleted

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ENT. Article fails WP:RS even after repeated attempts to find appropriate references. At best subject appears to be Too_soon. The article appears to be an example of WP:PROMOTION with peacocks by people with clear WP:COI. During attempts to fix the article there were multiple sock-puppets banned for vandalizing, and an editor admitting to have been paid by someone with a probable WP:COI -. Jersey92 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. There certainly are trace elements of notability, but I'm thinking this might be a case of having been created too soon.  As the nominator notes, COI/promotional edits have also been a problem, which generally lead me to the conclusion that it's not ready to stand on its own two feet yet.  Once there's more coverage in reliable sources, the article can be recreated.  Right now, there isn't really much to say except that she appeared on a reality TV show. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment While there were a couple attempts to clean up the article since the nomination, none sufficiently address the issue of notability. The NY Times citation that was added is a page on the NY Times website that has the subject's name and little else (clicking biography there it even says "Gender Unknown") ... and may appear from an automated feed from a movie database... it is not a discussion about the subject... Hence I believe this should be Delete --Jersey92 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I came to this article through the RFC on the talk page, which is no long relevant. I arrived after the rewrite, but saw the remains of a multitude of unreliable and primary sources probably left over from the original. I went through and cut them back drastically. We have a pretty low notability bar for actors (and sportsman for that matter) and this, while not amazing, might be enough for her to scrape by. AIR corn (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't that be at best a WP:BLP1E? Wikipedia is not going to have an article for everyone who appeared on a reality show... --Jersey92 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if she hadn't had other minor roles. Also point 2 of one event says "...is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" which is debatable given her career choice. It is a weak keep at the moment given the lack of quality secondary sources, so I might be convinced otherwise. As Ninja says there are traces of notability and I think the COI elements have been dealt with satisfactorily so I am leaning to giving it a chance. AIR corn (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but feel that what you are describing is pretty much WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject has independent coverage from reliable sources with many television roles. Also, as AIRcorn points out that the COI elements have been dealt with satisfactorily; the same goes with the promotional issue because I don't find any promotional information on the subject’s article. A bunch of poor sources were removed by different editors; the good sources are kept; and the citation issues are fixed according to the edit history. The Rfc is no longer applicable. This article may need expansion on the content, but not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristine nickol (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)  — Cristine nickol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. or Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cristine nickol (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Keep -- The reliable sources in this article are adequate to find this subject to be notable. Her acting career shows consistency year after year. This article provides more evidence of notability than just the reality TV. I do not see the reason why she is not-notable.Hillysilly (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Hillysilly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment So the sockpuppet and WP:COI saga has continued on the main Article page and spread to this AfD.
 * On the AfD:
 * Cristine nickol is suspected of a WP:COI with relation to this article and of being a sockpuppet - please see
 * User:Hillysilly appears clearly to be a new WP:SPA. Please check Special:Contributions/Hillysilly
 * On the article page
 * User:Starshop72 appears very much to be a new SPA. Please se Special:Contributions/Starshop72 - all in 1 day and appear related...
 * User:Klokus has previously admitted having a WP:COI and being paid to edit this article. Please see --Jersey92 (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

To whomever is sockpuppeting / using SPAs: If you want this Article to remain please do more that write "Keep" or say that the problems are fixed or that the subject is Notable. This is not a vote. It is a discussion. Please produce and add to the article real WP:RS that show why the subject passes WP:NOTABILITY. In this subject's case that would likely mean WP:ENT. (I tried and did not find these.) More sources that either do not meet WP:RS or show that the subject is WP:TOOSOON or WP:BLP1E do not cause this subject to pass WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please do not bite the newcomers: I recently made a contribution to the reference section of this article with good faith. User Jersey92, Why are you attacking me with names? Please stop attacking me by calling me names, sockpuppet and SPA, take back what you said about me, and give me an apology. At the end of the day, the content of the article and the subject should be judged by themselves, not by looking at the editor or accusations. Please assume good faith. Thank you. --Starshop72 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Noone is attacking you. Assuming good faith, however, does not mean ignoring an obvious pattern of sockpuppetry and SPAs in an AfD discussion and its associated article. Various accounts with these WP:COIs were even banned by administrators for vandalizing Wikipedia. Please see link above. If we assume good faith from every SPA and sockpuppet we will not have objective AfD discussions. As the nominator I want to make sure this discussion about the article is obective. If you want to fix the article please do so with real WP:RS as I discussed above. As I wrote above this is not a vote. If 100 SPAs and sockpuppets say Keep without providing proper reasons this article is still going to get deleted. The fact that so much problematic editing is going on also makes me believe that this article cannot stand on its own and should be deleted. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Part of a noticeable pattern of activity on the part of an editor who appears to be here only to promote and has now received a final warning. Deb (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep She has been mentioned in the Rising Star magazine and reputed news media such as DenverPost, NYTimes, LAtimes and others in the article. She has filmography from 2007 to 2015. I must say the article should be given a chance to keep and improve.Natalia.chase (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC) — Natalia.chase (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Another SPA... Article was given chance to improve with tags, RfC, and AfD and the response was vandalism, sock puppets and paid promotional edits. If there are real NY Times and LA Times coverage please add those references. Blank pages are not coverage. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Let's enforce the WP Terms of Use  with regard to obvious paid editor and sock Klokus as well as his minions.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2014 (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.