Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Hayes

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. v/r - T P 20:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Hayes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST Ariconte (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge I can't find any usable sources which aren't already in the article, but of those, the Chicago Tribune article is definitely suitable for WP:GNG, and the Politico and Today Show ones just about scrape through. However, I think the most appropriate solution is to create an article for the Miss Liberty America pageant (which does pass WP:GNG) or Rutherford B. Hayes (politician) (who might pass the guidelines; having the same exact name as the USA's 19th president makes it ridiculously hard to find sources) and merge the content of this article there. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having now created the article Miss Liberty America, I'm not convinced it does pass the guidelines - WP:TOOSOON may well apply, since the pageant hasn't actually taken place yet. When it does, I suspect more coverage will appear, but for now... well, there isn't a great deal; probably just enough to pass WP:GNG but not by much. I won't contest an AfD or PROD applied to that article, if other editors think it appropriate. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL - may not be ready yet for prime time. The references are truly weak. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.