- 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. I will userfy the article as requested by I am One of Many. Randykitty ( talk) 11:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Madison McKinley Garton
AfDs for this article:
- Madison McKinley Garton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Most of the references in the article fail WP:RS and the others do not establish notability. A similar article about the same subject was deleted in July (article was previously titled "Madison McKinley") and there does not seem to be any significant new reason in the article or in the WP:RS that indicates more notability than before. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_McKinley. A speedy delete G4 was declined. Jersey92 ( talk) 02:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- keep This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON with her acting career, but it is close. What pushes it over the top for me is that she was on The Bachelor because she was a model an actress and then received substantial coverage when she walked off. So, being at the tipping point in her acting career, the wide-spread coverage with the The Bachelor incident tips the article to notability as I see it. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 06:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The Bachelor episode was true in the last AfD as well but being on the show and walking off does not establish notability and the obvious consensus was to Delete.
WP:TOOSOON is a reason to Delete, not to Keep. Please also see
WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. --
Jersey92 (
talk)
13:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- The reason we have AfD is because we have to make interpretations of policy. I said that this appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but I believe she is over the hump. What clearly pushes her notability over the top is the extra added by The Bachelor episode, which received broad coverage. Hence, she is notable. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 02:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- What changed visavis this subject since the last AfD just a few months ago? -- Jersey92 ( talk) 04:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, nothing significant has changed. However, I did not participate in the first AfD and if I had, I would have made a similar argument and the discussion likely would have closed as no consensus (minus the SPAs). -- I am One of Many ( talk) 05:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The Bachelor episode was true in the last AfD as well but being on the show and walking off does not establish notability and the obvious consensus was to Delete.
WP:TOOSOON is a reason to Delete, not to Keep. Please also see
WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. --
Jersey92 (
talk)
13:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - as @ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: pointed out when they reversed the Speedy, "cceptance at AFC indicates prior concerns adequately addressed" Gbawden ( talk) 08:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Speedy Delete has stricter requirements than AfD. Admin did not feel a G4 was warranted. Acceptance at AfC does not mean that there is consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 23:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Minor part actress fails WP:ENT. -- Clean-up-wiki-guy ( talk) 02:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete BLP with bad sourcing, Recreation of prev AfD deleted under a new name. Possibly TOOSOON, so userification may be worth it. Widefox; talk 12:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment to closing admin If the decision is to delete, you can move it to my user space. If there are no new notable sources in the next year or so, I'll likely just have it deleted. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 00:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, close, but no cigar, not yet anyway. The coverage is routine tabloidy stuff that I wouldn't classify as reliable, and her acting career is still essentially a list of minor bit parts. I don't see that she meets WP:ENT. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC).
- 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.
- 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. I will userfy the article as requested by I am One of Many. Randykitty ( talk) 11:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Madison McKinley Garton
AfDs for this article:
- Madison McKinley Garton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Most of the references in the article fail WP:RS and the others do not establish notability. A similar article about the same subject was deleted in July (article was previously titled "Madison McKinley") and there does not seem to be any significant new reason in the article or in the WP:RS that indicates more notability than before. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_McKinley. A speedy delete G4 was declined. Jersey92 ( talk) 02:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- keep This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON with her acting career, but it is close. What pushes it over the top for me is that she was on The Bachelor because she was a model an actress and then received substantial coverage when she walked off. So, being at the tipping point in her acting career, the wide-spread coverage with the The Bachelor incident tips the article to notability as I see it. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 06:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The Bachelor episode was true in the last AfD as well but being on the show and walking off does not establish notability and the obvious consensus was to Delete.
WP:TOOSOON is a reason to Delete, not to Keep. Please also see
WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. --
Jersey92 (
talk)
13:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- The reason we have AfD is because we have to make interpretations of policy. I said that this appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but I believe she is over the hump. What clearly pushes her notability over the top is the extra added by The Bachelor episode, which received broad coverage. Hence, she is notable. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 02:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- What changed visavis this subject since the last AfD just a few months ago? -- Jersey92 ( talk) 04:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, nothing significant has changed. However, I did not participate in the first AfD and if I had, I would have made a similar argument and the discussion likely would have closed as no consensus (minus the SPAs). -- I am One of Many ( talk) 05:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The Bachelor episode was true in the last AfD as well but being on the show and walking off does not establish notability and the obvious consensus was to Delete.
WP:TOOSOON is a reason to Delete, not to Keep. Please also see
WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. --
Jersey92 (
talk)
13:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - as @ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: pointed out when they reversed the Speedy, "cceptance at AFC indicates prior concerns adequately addressed" Gbawden ( talk) 08:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Speedy Delete has stricter requirements than AfD. Admin did not feel a G4 was warranted. Acceptance at AfC does not mean that there is consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 23:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Minor part actress fails WP:ENT. -- Clean-up-wiki-guy ( talk) 02:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete BLP with bad sourcing, Recreation of prev AfD deleted under a new name. Possibly TOOSOON, so userification may be worth it. Widefox; talk 12:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment to closing admin If the decision is to delete, you can move it to my user space. If there are no new notable sources in the next year or so, I'll likely just have it deleted. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 00:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, close, but no cigar, not yet anyway. The coverage is routine tabloidy stuff that I wouldn't classify as reliable, and her acting career is still essentially a list of minor bit parts. I don't see that she meets WP:ENT. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC).
- 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.