Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Golebiewski (3rd nomination)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Golebiewski

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

Per the reasoning at WP:NOPAGE the name of this state university student should be immortalized at Miss Connecticut USA for her WP:15MOF. WP:NOPAGE assumes notability, but argues that in some cases the information should be summarized in an appropriate list, which this is a classic example of.

Article reads in its entirety:

Ashley Golebiewski is an American beauty pageant titleholder from Berlin, Connecticut.[1] She was named Miss Connecticut USA 2015.[2][3] She went to theMiss USA 2015 pageant on July 12, 2015, but was not a finalist.[4][5][6] Golebiewski, a first-generation American, is the daughter of Mirek and Eva Golebiewski.[4] She is a 2012 graduate of Mercy High School, a private, Roman Catholic, all-girls high school in Middletown, Connecticut.[2][7] As of November 2014, she attended Central Connecticut State University, studying Business and Finance.[4] Golebiewski's first pageant win was in the Miss Polonia Connecticut pageant in 2011.[4]

Fails WP:NMODEL too.

Legacypac (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD 1 by Legacypac was closed as "Keep all for the time being; renominate separately--they are likely to be of unequal notability." AfD 2, again by Legacypac was closed as "Keep". The article provides reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability, one that passed community consensus just this year. This continued abuse of process needs to be put to an end once and for all; Legacypac nominating the same article over and over (and over and over) again until he gets the demanded deletion is simply disruptive. Alansohn (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User should probably give it a rest. Artw (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per outcome of nom 1 and nom 2 as well as Artw. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Legacypac you do realize renominating again and again AND AGAIN won't get the article deleted? ..... Although I did !vote delete in the previous 2 I perhaps wasn't aware of the sources, Either way it meets GNG and it's an obvious Keep so kindly give up renominating this article and go do something productive. –Davey2010^Talk 03:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, without opposition to Merge/Redirect if there's an appropriate target - The article provides exclusively local and primary sources. My own search turns up a little more, but not much, and nearly all of it comes from the same span of a few days, for the same event, saying more or less the same thing. It's tenuous whether a stand-alone article is justified. But given that the nomination is ... we'll say "unconventional" ... and because sourcing isn't abominable, I'm having a hard time saying delete here. What I will say is that while this nomination is less than ideal, it is not the case that Legacypac nominated previously based on not liking the close. The first nomination, though the closer used the word "keep", was closed as a "you nominated too many", with subsequent instructions to renominate one or a few of them at a time. DGG even said of his close, "Personally, fwiw, I certainly hope most of them get deleted" (based on separate/smaller nominations). ...Anyway, I'm not trying to open a discussion of that first AfD here -- my only point for bringing it up is because it seems like Legacypac is being characterized as nominating this three distinct times rather than nominating once, being directed to nominate fewer at a time so renominating, and then this one. Not that that necessarily changes anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:23, 15 December 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.