Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Font


 * 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   '''There is no reason to expect that some of them might not be notable, so they need to be considered individually, a few at  a time, so they can have proper discussion. .  DGG''' ( talk ) 06:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Michelle Font

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails criteria for WP:NMODEL - note a state winner from 2008 Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NMODEL Criteria: Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

a) Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

b) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

c) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

and also nominating:


 * Reading earlier text in this page, the notability requirements only require individuals to meet one of the above criteria. From a small sampling, all of them have won competitions at state level, in a significant competition. They're not Miss Teen Alabama or runner-up of Miss Alabama. They won the full level competitions. --  Zanimum (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep First of all, this was not a good bundling of AfDs. Just at first glance, some of these articles look like they may not be notable, while others appear to pass WP:GNG quite easily. These really need to be evaluated on an individual basis. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep First of all, the nominator's deletion criteria NModel doesn't apply because the person he nominates isn't a model, but a beauty pageant winner. None of that notability section applies here. Secondly, these are state pageant winners. That's sufficent for WP:GNG....William 02:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect per arguments at Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie. Also note that that AfD, the above 2 editors' opinions are shown to be wholly without merit; vague handwaves of a "keep they meet GNG" evaporate when one actually looks at the articles in question and finds blogs, tweets, primary sources, press releases, and local newspapers as sources. Tarc (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, when did local newspapers become unadmissable? So long as they are reliable, why is this relevant? A notable state-level pageant is a notable state-level pageant. If the cited coverage is in a smaller market paper, so be it. That the individual is most of interest within their home region isn't surprising. The very fact that the paper does its own reporting is to be celebrated, that they didn't just run a newswire article about their hometown winner. --  Zanimum (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My local paper covers a game of cowflap bingo (if that turns out to be a red link, it is a contest where one draws large bingo cards in a field, lead recently-fed cowers back and forth, and...you get the idea) held at the elementary school every year, but I doubt an article on such would survive for very long. WP:GEOSCOPE would be the answer to your questin regarding local newspapers. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GEOSCOPE only applies to events, not people. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per ...William. State winners of major pageants are notable (whether or not the articles are properly referenced).  If that doesn't apply to all in the list, then run AfD on individual articles.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * State pageant-winners are not inherently notable; the simple repetition of a canard does not make it become true. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The same way you keep insisting that they are not? Some things in this world are obvious, and state-level winners of pageants usually get reported on in the regular press and are considered of notable stature.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have to prove a negative, the burden is on your head to prove notability here, I'm afraid. Scant mention in a local newspaper, alongside the dog-catcher elections and the new sidewalk constructions isn't notable, it is routine. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Although state level, the winners rarely get newspaper coverage outside their own home town. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete all except Culberson, Hood, and Brown – Not notable outside of one event --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see this prior, similar AfD, specifically the point made by DGG addressing potential BLP1E concerns. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * please see this similar AfD which went Delete. Legacypac (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which had nothing to due with BLP1E. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - most of the articles have at least 2 reliable sources, which in the absence of specific argument against said sources is sufficient to establish notability. It is not feasible to debate the merits of each individual source in a mass AfD, and it is unfair of delete voters to try to shift that burden unto keep voters.  (The default of an AfD is keep, not delete.  Mass AfDs are normally a huge waste of a time - the only plausible outcomes are keep all (because the community decides all X are notable) or no consensus (because some X are notable and some aren't, but no one can simultaneously research a long list of X). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:19, 27 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.