Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jillian Wunderlich

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Wunderlich[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [1] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: There is discussion related to a batch of AFDs, I think all about model articles created by one editor, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:

Somewhat related, new AFDs (but these are for model articles started by different editors) are:

--do ncr am 22:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on a group of these articles 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 ) 16:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and ask for an immediate closure The nominator has put up no rationale for this AFD. The editor who created the Wunderlich article is not banned. Even if they were, WP:DENY is not a valid reason because this article saw significant edits by other editors....William 16:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

State level winning has been deemed not notable. What significant edits? Legacypac (talk) 19:02, 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]
Keep I have updated the article with more references. It now has a total of five references. With references and citations across several sources about more than one event(pageant titles in different years) this articles subject has achieved notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Miss Indiana USA with no prejudice against building it into a proper article later. Subject might be notable, but I don't feel the current referencing proves it. That doesn't mean we can't have a paragraph about Wunderlich at a broader article. One paragraph would not give inappropriate eight at Miss Indiana USA, and that is all there is in this article at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 6 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.