Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiara Belen

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The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 00:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiara Belen

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

Note for an Admin - WP:WITHDRAWN I agree with everyone below that a multi individual review is much too complicated. Especially when a couple are already clearly borderline. Of course it started with two, and grew from there. Apologies.--Nixie9 (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are all covering women who lost America's Next Top Model show. They fail WP:GNG, fulfiling WP:ONEEVENT, each was on a single reality/competition show, not the winner. The existing listing for each on the show's article/table is sufficient. The majority of the articles are a play by play of the show, followed by the claim that she was in one to a handful of photo shoots or in non-speaking television roles, with no editorial references. I wish each lady luck in their careers, but the subjects are not encyclopedic. Nixie9 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the list of previous runners-up to this competition (often 2nd or 3rd runner up). This group could very well be the original case study for WP:ONEEVENT. Each lost this event, and has had minor modeling photoshoots, but no editorial coverage establishing notability. Now fans are trying to add every contestent. Most articles have had source needed tags for ages. There are a few ladies I excluded due to editorial coverage, but I did not do a deep investigation. If there are only ads for refs, and no editorials, I scooped them up in the dragnet.--Nixie9 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Nixie9 (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These huge group discussions are always a bit problematic as I want to be sure I've given each one a fair hearing. However, I will just quickly vote keep for Amanda Swafford as she is a bit more special with her disability. There is an extensive interview with her in a London paper here, and she was still being recognised several years after the show according to the Google snippet view for this, and this. She has demonstrated longevity and general notability, so she shouldn't even be on here.Mabalu (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note that the fact that some of these were brought back for the "All Stars" show is probably significant too, meaning that they kind of go beyond WP:SINGLEEVENT now they've done the follow-up show several years later. This article sums up what some of them have gone on to do, though the irony is that a couple of the more interesting/notability-passing ones aren't in your list. (I'm glad you didn't nominate Isis King, by the way.) But I really do hate this style of nomination - four or five names is manageable but listing 30 at once is overwhelming and runs the risk that some people will get deleted without receiving a fair assessment because of the pressure to come up with a blanket decision. Mabalu (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Mercedes Scelba-Shorte by the way. She demonstrates general notability with a number of articles in various third party sources, largely due to her work as an lupus spokesperson, something she has been doing over several years according to the dates on the news results which start in 2004 and go up to 2012. I see a number of hits for her on Google News under her name Mercedes Yvette, in various languages, e.g.. 1, 2. Seriously, there's a lot out there about her work with the Lupus Society, so she shouldn't be on this list either. Mabalu (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Yaya DaCosta - again, really? The article shows a quite impressive list of film, music video, and television appearances, and nominations for awards (even though most are as part of an ensemble cast, it still counts). It all adds up into a clear general notability pass. There is this, and she has lots of hits on Google News Archive. I will say that after looking at three in a row and finding plenty of reasons why those three pass general notability, I am going to vote a blanket keep on the entire list with no prejudice against renomination of certain individuals. Mabalu (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blanket keep on the entire list without prejudice to renomination of individual articles per Mabalu. This kind of blanket AfD is just about the worst way to handle this sort of thing. WP:SINGLEEVENT may well cover some of these folks but, like it or not, others meet WP:GNG because their appearance on a reality show, even as a loser on a reality show, even as a loser on this loser of a reality show, gave them the leg-up for the future prominence they were looking for and led to later biographical events that rendered them notable by virtue of being covered in reliable sources. In my view reality shows aren't much better than Muzak, which I truly despise. But what I despise is irrelevant. Both Muzak and a fair number of these losers are appropriately covered in wikipedia articles, under wikipedia's policies and guidelines. David in DC (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, If there is sourcing for each article then they meet GNG generally. Insomesia (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Insomesia except for Samantha Potter, which will likely redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 11. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep and relist individually, even if most will likely be deleted, so as to not give the reviewing admin nightmares. i concur with the nominator that their appearance on ANTM doesnt grant notability, per the lack of serious media coverage for most of them post show.(mercurywoodrose)99.157.206.37 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 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.