Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzy Olsen (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. No opinion on a proper redirect target. postdlf (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzy Olsen[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [1] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation if the user's ban.[2] Content may even be machine created. Legacypac (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: Related discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:

Related, new AFDs (for articles started by different editors) are:

--do ncr am 22:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep because the nominator fails to give a reason for deletion. The nominator only brings up WP:DENY and if the article fails that, then he has no rationale....William 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the linked previous AFD, the nom argued that the subject does not meet wp:NMODEL, and notes that NMODEL requires that a person 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, or c) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. --do ncr am 15:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, ~~All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests,~~ No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there's plenty of coverage about different person indie film and Godzilla (2014 film) actress Elizabeth Olsen, younger sister of twins Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen, who is also known as "Lizzie" or "Lizzy", I can find NO coverage of the AFD subject in Google news search. It is only according to the thepageantnetwork link included in the article that one could have any idea that the subject won Miss Washington DC USA in December 2014. That link shows her pic, clearly different person than the notable actress. Fails to meet wp:NMODEL; has not yet had the "substantial subsequent career" that DGG notes would be necessary. --do ncr am 15:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss District of Columbia USA with no bias against creating a proper article later if sources emerge. At current, however, there is not enough to support an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment, of redirecting to a state list-article. But here, redirecting this name to actress Elizabeth Olsen would be more justified. The actress appears to be the person more likely sought by a reader searching on "Lizzy Olsen". I stay with my "Delete" vote above. --do ncr am 22:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for me - use this title as a redirect to the actress. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on WP:BIO grounds and concur with Redirect to Elizabeth Olsen --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:28, 15 February 2015 (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.