Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal (United States) models (2nd 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. — Cirt (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal (United States) models

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

This is still overly detailed fancruft. Not a single source to be found, and I can't think of something that would source it. Way too much trivia. This was originally deleted, but then overturned and relisted, where it ended up with a "no consensus".

TJRC suggested a few sources in the last AFD, but all of them turned out to be unreliable, and when I called him out on it he just shrugged it off. Hullaballoo suggested a primary source, which is clearly not enough. All of the other "keep" arguments were WP:ITSNOTABLE, but all of the "delete" arguments were WP:Not notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's unbelievable that this actually got through a deletion review (I didn't comment after it was thrown back after the DR because my vote still stood as I wanted it presented). There isn't much salvageable here and it reads like something that belongs on a DoND wiki where it would be good, not here where it just seems like someone spent too much time DVR'ing GSN and NBC and put all the names in a notebook to present this article. It's all WP:OR and when you get down to it, the vast majority of the models rarely have a bluelink to a BLP of their own. Nate • (chatter) 05:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close this is too soon within the window (9 days) after the last AfD close. If you believe that AfD was closed in error, then you may take it back to DRV if you really think that's the best course of action. Three months would be a good window to see if consensus has shifted, which gives you a bit more than two and a half to go. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV closing statement was "Relist for further discussion. The arguments are fairly even here, but on balance, the overturn side makes an argument sufficient that another week of discussion is the best way forward.– Courcelles 17:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)". I think that means it is fine to have this discussion now, though it wouldn't be the end of the world if we waited for another few months. NW (Talk) 18:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NW, I enacted that decision by reopening the first AFD, and discussion continued for another week. (And there, was, indeed, a decent amount of fresh discussion), following which Sandstein closed it as no consensus. Courcelles 00:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All this information is synthesized by the photos originating from one sole source, the 1st party.Curb Chain (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2011 (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.