Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joslyn Pennywell

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 November 22.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. The Joslyn article didn't really have much going for it; there are a couple news sources I found which mentioned her, but they also mentioned half of the other contestants. Don't think that's a huge step for notability. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joslyn Pennywell[edit]

Joslyn is completely unnotable, so I believe that this article should be deleted. Carrieunderwoodfan (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Carrieunderwoodfan (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominating one article requests for deletion:

Keep - The article is well referenced and asserts notability. I see no reason to delete the article A new name 2008 (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is having press about you right? Well Joslyn has sites talking about her pageant past and Ebony Fair career, she has been on msnbc about her scam, she is notable, check the references if you don't believe me. There have been discussions on similar cases (Ie. Shannon Stewart and Cassandra Whitehead) and they have led to a keep. Weak Delete for Sheena though... I don't think she has had that many sites/articles about her--Whadaheck (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Seems pretty well sourced and notable to me. ~Pip 2 andahalf 04:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, delete for Sheena Sakai. Doesn't really assert notability. Some minor stunt work? Finishing 6th on Top Model?...No. As for Joslyn...well, weak delete. I understand that it's well-referenced. But what exactly is she notable for? Top Model, she got 7th. The scam, well, the focus is on the scam, not on her (she was just one of the victims). As for the pageants, she doesn't appear to have won a notable crown. So I don't know how the article can be kept on the basis of notability. SKS2K6 (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cassandra Whitehead is nominating for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead (3rd nomination). 121.96.111.44 (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: I see a lot of references, yes. What I don't see is a single reliable, third-party, independent source that is, as is required, about the subject. Youtube doesn't qualify. Pageant blog sites don't qualify. Gossip blog sites don't qualify. A clip from MSNBC referencing several models doesn't qualify. Is there a print magazine article solely about her? A newspaper article solely about her? An interview of her on a mainstream, broadcast network? I don't see anything, no. There's this common fallacy running around XfD that an article with ten sources is "well-referenced," but if the sources don't meet WP:RS, wastepaper is all they are. RGTraynor 17:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sheena Sakai, no independant coverage.
Delete Joslyn Pennywell. I don't see multiple independant non trivial coverage in reliable sources about Pennywell. Coverage is about the scam or is cross promotion. not about pennywell. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only is the original nomination whacky (why isn't she notable? there is no reason given) but the article also gives multiple third party sources showing the notability of Joslyn. Delete Sheena Sakai. That being said, putting to AFDs on one page is a really bad idea. Can anybody fix that?--Siemgi (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Grouping AfDs is far from a "really bad idea," it's not only permitted in deletion policy, but encouraged. That aside, what of those sources in the Joslyn article do you claim meets the criteria of WP:RS? RGTraynor 04:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a godd idea in some cases but not this one. Sheena is not as notable as Joslyn. The sources are third party source and AFAIK sources like msnbc are good sources right?--Siemgi (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ALL: Both are notable.--Asvoria (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both but more so Sheena Sakai, per above reasons, as well they so far are as notable as all of the other ANTM contestant which is not notable in itself.--Sugarcubez (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they don't meet the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2008 (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.