Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melrose Bickerstaff (second 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 delete and redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 7. Yes, there are a lot of keep comments here. However, none of the keep arguments (yes indeed, this is not a vote, so arguments, not numbers are what's important) makes a case for the subject meeting any of the criteria of WP:BIO. —Doug Bell talk 09:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Melrose Bickerstaff (second nomination)

 * (second nomination) — (View AfD)

This article was previously deleted by AfD, at the end of September, 2006.

It was recreated on December 3. Not knowing it had been previously deleted, I prodded it on December 7. After the prod was removed by User:Stealthusa without comment, I added a speedy (CSD G4) tag, which was seconded by User:Sigma 7 , and then deleted by User: Ted3977 with the comment "A lot of people supporting this pages [sic] existence popped up. Sorry".

That the contestant was popular is simply a mass invocation of WP:ILIKEIT. If the previous contestants on this reality television show are any gauge, the model might be popular now, but in a year or two few people will remember her. Aside from losing on the show, she's done nothing noteworthy or substantial. Google tests are tempting but invalid, since they return lots of hits on MySpace pages, blogs and forums about fans discussing the show -- but precious few hard, third-party stories.

This model fails WP:BIO, then, and the article should be deleted leaving a redirect back to the show season's page. -- Mikeblas 13:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP Very notable contestant and model. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.205.14.182 (talk • contribs).
 * Comment this anon user has already voted Keep -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  08:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE I did do an indepth google and dogpile search for Thirdparty articles. She fails WP:BIO very badly.  WP:ILIKEIT does not trumph WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV.  Since no reliable independent third party sources are available to prove she has any more notability than the show she was a contestant on, she fails WP:BIO. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 17:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Current google search results are irrelevant. Top two on a notable television competition show, she inevitably will gain even more notoriety. -- Freemarket 19:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP There is no reason to delete this page! Gina Choe has her own page and she finished tenth on the show! Also, Bickerstaff is now working for a design company. Put together with her Top Model fame she does have enough notability for her own page.-Acne_Wash
 * Comment But she is Not Notable. We don't have nor need pages for every contestant for every game/talent/reality show on television. IF she wins or has other claims to fame other than this, then she passes WP:BIO but for now...she doesn't and that means in wikipedia that her article should be removed. Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball for what could be. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 21:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment in the past 6 weeks almost all the user's (Acne Wash) edits have been on a small number of ANTM articles - this one and the Babins. -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP the article. There's no reason to delete, she is a current working model, a catergory which includes many.
 * Comment that seems to be the common cry here... but it does not make her notable. Any claims of future notability are blatant crystal ballism... --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  05:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm sure she'll have a VH1 show, since everyone else seems to be getting one.
 * Merge to the cycle article until she gains greater notability outside ANTM. --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Your order of events isn't quite correct... I was the one who removed the speedy tag because, in my opinion, it did not meet the speedy criteria. I did encourage that it go back to AFD though so am pleased to see it here. --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - All the other Top Model Runner-up have articles. She's won a few Fashion Design awards in San Francisco. I'll still know who she is in a year (not that matters for AFD). -- andrew|ellipsed...  Speak 23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That was an award given out by the school she attended. --Dgies 17:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 7 or Delete per nom. There is ample precedent for deleting or merging all these game show losers, and she's done nothing notable since she lost.  As a model, doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO.  She is, if anything, less notable than many other ANTM contestants that have been deleted.  Xtifr tälk 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - They just announced the winner last Wednesday. Don't reality shows usually make the constestants sign a paper saying they can't draw attention to themselves, or reveal the results until the winner is revealed on tv? So, there isn't going to be much on her at the moment. Since Melrose was a decent modle, it is likely to assume that she'll be just as notable as the other 2nd runner-ups.
 * Comment exactly... that is what we are trying to tell you. Assuming that she'll be notable in the future is crystal ballism and crystal ballism has no place on Wikipedia --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  21:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - The other runner-ups have pages, so why delete? -- andrew|ellipsed...  Speak 05:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment this user has already voted. -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, since her official website went up yesterday, it's safe to assume she is still modeling. (That doesn't necessarily make her notable though). -- andrew|ellipsed...  Speak 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is, we don't create articles (or keep articles) about people on the off-chance that the subject may become famous/notable in the future. No matter how likely it might appear.  Clear notability is supposed to be achieved first.  (And as for the other runners-up, WP:INN.  They may be notable for other reasons or may simply not have been deleted yet.)  Xtifr tälk 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree with points already made. -- TrojanMan 11:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the article has the following claims to notability:
 * runner-up on ANTM
 * has appeared in an editorial for Seventeen Magazine
 * has served as a special correspondent for E!
 * is designing clothes for a non-notable company
 * That is all, and it is what people should be basing their vote on. It for people to decide whether that passes WP:Bio... as I have already indicated I believe that it clearly does not. --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  21:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- according to a recent (unsourced) edit, the work for E! was a reward for winning a challenge on ANTM, so that should be scratched when considering notability... -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is this much discussion, she's notable DGG 04:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the comments come from people who have very few edits outside ANTM related articles... and users who have been accused of being spammers on their talk page. There has also been double-voting by two users, who also fit the above categories.  Most of the rest has come from me trying to point out the inadequacies in peoples arguments and show where double voting etc is happening... it looks like this is going to be kept but I still can't see how a) anyone would beleive that one is notable simply because there's been a lot of discussion here (see my points above), and b) that the four (unsourced) points above are enough to claim notability.  However, I am but one voice... --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe the four above mentioned points DO indeed make her notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Reid1867 09:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge, redirect, protect Those four points mentioned are evidence of notability, but aside from the ANTM appearance, stuff like that would apply to tons pf people working in the fashion and modeling industry. If she achieves notability independently on ANTM, such as signing a modeling contract with a major agency, or becoming successful as a designer on her own, then it makes sense to put her in a seperate article. --Dgies 17:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:DGG has a point. Besides she has enough google hits as far as I'm concerned. -- Crevaner 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Commment. Of course, that's completely irrelevant. Google hits are one way to determine the lack of notability, but they don't prove notability. -- Mikeblas 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I disagree, in the strongest terms possible.  Google hits do not prove, nor do they disprove notability, they merely demonstrate how frequently other sites link to each other.  Yamaguchi先生 02:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your description of Google is flawed. Google doesn't track links; it tracks text. You're searching through the text on the pages, not the links on the pages. The order of the results might be influenced by the number of links, but the number of hits is the number of time the searched text was found in the corpus Google has spidered. If the text isn't found at all, it's a strong argument that the term doesn't exist. If you have more questions, feel free to send an email or use my talk page as I don't think clarifying this is an appropriate use of the AfD process. -- Mikeblas 03:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you work for Google? The only thing that is "flawed" is using Google as a test to determine the notability of a subject.  They are particularly unreliable for pre 18th century topics and the like. Yamaguchi先生 03:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - If a whole bunch of tv shows have articles about their minor, reacurring characters, a notable contestant on a reality show can't have an article? It just doesn't feel right to me. I mean, reality contestants usually sign a confidentiality agreement, that says they can't talk about the show until it's over. Why don't you just keep the article for another week, and if nothing more notable is realeased, re-nominate her? It seems a bit more fair. -- andrew|ellipsed...  Speak 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. Why? This is already the second nomination, and the result of the first one was delete. -- Mikeblas 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The first nomination occured before the show was even over, and i have no problem, and agree that she was nn then, but since the show is over, and she got 2nd, the whole situation is a bit different. -- andrew|ellipsed...  Speak


 * Keep as much as I hate the fucking show, a runner up on a reality show has some semblance of notability, considering the amount of media coverage on the top model candidates.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 03:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep i think she's notable enough.ANTM is a hit show.--Thelastnigth 06:11, 15 December 2006 (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.