Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie

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.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 January 31.
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 Keep all for the time being; renominate separately--they are likely to be of unequal notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Guthrie

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

Fails WP:NMODEL all only notable for one event (winning a state level pageant). Poorly sourced and part of a big effort by banned socks of the pageant co to create pages and build high SEO value wikipedia links to their websites and facebook pages. Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMODEL Criteria: Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

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.

c) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot per nom - Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'd individually nomed a couple of these, then grouped them together. I've deleted the individual listings to save confusion. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you've failed pretty spectacularly in that goal. Almost none were so much as tagged afd; none had proper afd redirects point here; three (Gretchen Reece, Mamé Adjei, Ylianna Guerra) are currently redirects; one (Alexis Railsback (AfD discussion)) has survived a previous afd; and one (Molly Ketterling (AfD discussion)) is already being discussed in a completely independent afd. —Cryptic 10:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I can see why you stopped trying. They look bot-created; about two thirds amount to "{{INFOBOX}} '''{{ARTICLENAME}}''' was crowned [[Miss {{STATENAME}} USA 2015]], she will represent {{STATENAME}} at [[Miss USA 2015]].<ref>miscellaneous external link</ref> ==External links== *[same external link] *http://www.missuniverse.com/missusa {{Miss USA}}", complete with the same comma splice in all of them except where someone's come along to clean up. So redirect the ones that are still no more than that to their parent articles (Miss Alabama USA for Madison Guthrie, for example); no opinion on the others; and when this afd inevitably fails as no consensus, go ahead and do that editorially. Like, you know, you should have tried in the first place. —Cryptic 10:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing My Vote to Delete: Previously I voted to keep some of these articles on previous individual AfD entries, but I now change my vote to delete them all. I was mistaken that all Miss USA contestants receive their own articles, while it's really only all Miss Universe contestants receive their own articles (plus notable Miss USA contestants). My mistake. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjj1238: (or anyone else who knows): Where did you see that all Miss Universe contestants receive their own articles (plus notable Miss USA contestants)? I'm asking not to challenge you but because as I was going through the sock's contributions I came across a few international competitions but haven't been able to find any specific guidelines pertaining to specific competitions or titles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. They are pretty much junk. All created by a banned SOCK user, but it is impossible to get Admins to speedy delete based on banned user because they say it was not created in violation of the ban (yet they are created by a SOCK related to many banned accts). I built the list off one page that listed them all. There are hundreds and hundreds more based on different years and contests. I'd rather not spend the rest of y life trying to deal with the listings one at a time, since some program or paid editor likely created all this useless spam. Legacypac (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them. Per Jjj1238, contestants at this level don't get articles automatically, so they shouldn't be created automatically. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as plausible/useful search terms. State pageants aren't inherently notable. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tarc. Nathan^T 17:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion sorting
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this overly broad sweep has caught up several subjects that would appear to meet WP:GNG and most editors are unlikely to give each article the attention due at AfD with this many piled in a heap for consideration. At worst these should be redirected as highly plausible search terms. At best, they would have been tagged and the proper WP:BEFORE effort would have been made before each was considered. - Dravecky (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked on all of them, and once the eye-bleed wore off, what I found was that they are all sourced to twitter, instsagram, facebook, blogspot, pageant websites, with a select few having a tiny blurb in a local paper. The closest to a fleshed-out bio is Olivia Jordan's, but when you dig at the claims to fame such as "..is slated to appear in the upcoming Hot Tub Time Machine 2", one finds her credited as Bridesmaid #2. So if you would, please, point to a specific article that you feel meets the general notability guide. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the sourcing to the pageant websites is usually just to the homepage - not like they even warrant their own page. And some of the facebook sources are just a group photo! I listed a few one at a time and got posts here and on my talk page complaining they should be bundled. If any of them met GNG someone other than spammers would have created the pages, and they might be doing something other then paying their own $$$ to be in pageants. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I've significantly improved the Madison Guthrie article and now believe she crosses the WP:GNG threshold. If these has all been tagged for improvement instead of being sloppily mass-rushed to AfD, it's reasonable to presume that many others in this sweep would also cross the GNG threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires enduring coverage over a period of time, which she does not have and there's still a BLP1E issue. Even if we ignore both of those, I disagree these sources come close to GNG. BroBible.com, Axs ~~(which appears to be a promoter/pr venue, but I'm nto sure)~~, a list, a quick blurb via the Miss Universe site, a hyperlocal blog (280 Living is "for the communities along the Highway 280 corridor in Birmingham, Alabama"), and her agency/promoter's site along with only one source I would consider pretty solid in the Tuscaloosa News (still primary and local and for the same one event, though). I respect trying to save some of these, but I think this is an uphill battle. Some better cases on the other mass AfD which I've been meaning to look through. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AXS TV is a cable network formerly known as HD NET. - 12:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As a well established media company, AXS should be considered a reliable source unless evidence is presented that they don't fact check... and all the contestants have articles about them on AXS. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all, per Tarc. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and Redirect to their respective competitions. I opened all of them in separate tabs and looked into those with more than the single line + links: Ashleigh Lollie, Emma Wo, Alexis Railsback, Candice Bennatt, Alexis Duprey, Julia Dalton, and Olivia Jordan. All of them fail WP:BIO. The rest (which almost certainly also fail WP:BIO) qualify for WP:TNT as the product of a blocked promotional sockpuppet account. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Group AfDs are messy. This is one of the rare cases where the approach seems to have merit. Unfortunately it didn't get all of them (as has already been pointed out). Here are others created by the same sock. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Dunn
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Scheu
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leah Blefko
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Dwomoh
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Cardillo
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Font 2008 batch nomination. None of these have become notable since 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 06:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'em all: Yeah, a great case for WP:TNT. (And heck, if Dravecky thinks that any of these are good articles, say which ones are, with which evidence. Otherwise, sorry, Deletion policy allows bundled AfDs.) Nha Trang ^Allons! 15:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I've personally improved the Madison Guthrie article to at least cross the WP:GNG threshold and suspect that many others could be similarly improved if they had been properly tagged per WP:BEFORE and WP:DEADLINE instead of sweeping them all right off to AfD with no visible effort at improvement or even basic clean-up. - Dravecky (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unrevealed WP:Conflict of interest. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Madison Guthrie, Ashleigh Lollie, ~~Alexis Railsback~~, Candice Bennatt, Alexis Duprey, Olivia Jordan, and Kiara Young articles. These articles have already progressed to the point where they meet WP:GNG already. All of the rest can probably best be served by a redirect to the main pageant article at this time. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a statement lacking in the truth department. Example #1 is Alexis Duprey, which apart from the AfD tagging has gone unedited since Jan 6th, created on the 5th. It contains a single source, to a blogspot-hosted pageant site. Example #2 is Alexis Railsback, sources to a press release (not a RS), a pageant webpage (primary source), and "fresh star news" (a blog). Explain how these meet the WP:GNG? Tarc (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went back through and added some third party sources to the Duprey article. On the Railsback one, I missed that fact that the Shawnee Dispatch piece is apparently user-submitted PR - in that case, strike that one, as I'm not finding anything else in third party sources on her. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep because of faulty nomination. NModel makes no mention of beauty pageant contestants and beauty pagent contestants are NOT labeled automatically as models. Some of them may have done modeling but their competing in Miss New York, Miss Hawaii, Miss Nebraska, etc doesn't make them a model. I've looked through about a half dozen of the nominees here or in another similar AFD, and either the articles make no mention of the person of being a model or if the word model was in there, there was nothing else saying they were so and the word model was removed by me. They are however winners of major stage beauty pageants and that makes them all pass WP:GNG....William 02:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out where "winners of major stage beauty pageants" is listed as a criteria at the WP:GNG link? I am unable to find this line. Tarc (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you want to dispute the applicability of NMODEL in the nomination, that multiple other people have expressed problems with the article not limited to NMODEL means it doesn't qualify for speedy keep. It can furthermore be presumed from invoking NMODEL that the nominator believes them not to be notable (and by any of the notability criteria they are not). The nomination was a bit sloppy, but functional now and discussion has proceeded. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really happy with the mass nomination either, but this argument has no merit. If you refuse to accept WP:NMODEL as applicable, then the only remaining guidance we have is the stricter, last-resort general notability guideline; and to credibly argue that they pass that, you have to provide sources. None of the articles have them, and just asserting that they must exist doesn't cut it. —Cryptic 03:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[[WP:NMODEL}} is just another shortcut to WP:ENTERTAINER. If they are not models (and I think that is exactly what they are modeling evening gowns and swim suits) they are "celebrities" or "actresses" - so which of a, b or c criteria do they meet? This is not an athletic sport, but it is a type of competition so we could apply the principles of the sports figures rules WP:NCOLLATH which require winning a national award, hall of fame induction, or significant independent coverage. Also consider WP:ROUTINE (100% of the few news sources on these people), and WP:BIO1E ("People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead.") Legacypac (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. State winners of major pageants are notable (whether or not the articles are properly referenced). If that doesn't apply to all in the list, then run AfD on individual articles. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to point to an existing policy or guideline that supports this argument, that state pageant winners are inherently notable? Tarc (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IANAWL, but if all elected state-level politicians are considered notable, then state-level winners of major pageants are, within reason. Not everything that is common-sensical has to find a policy or guideline for support. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, anyone who wins a blue-ribbon at a state fair is notable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a state level election based on thousands of votes and making laws for 4 to 5 years is a little more notable then winning a pageant because you look good in a swimsuit etc based on a handful of judges. It is not even like there is just one Miss New Mexico, there are 4 or 5 different pageants run by different private companies with sightly different statewide titles. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And first-round NHL draft picks are considered notable, but so freaking what? They're considered notable by the pertinent SNG the same way that state-level politicians are considered notable by their pertinent SNG -- because people at that level generally pass the GNG. There's nothing "common-sensical" about this: had you noticed how many people don't agree with you? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but Candice Bennatt and Olivia Jordan – With the exception of Bennatt and Jordan, these individuals are not notable outside one event --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see this prior, similar AfD, specifically the point made by DGG addressing potential BLP1E concerns. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this talk page are VERY revealing under Your edits he says: I will hand off this project to Vanbros.com who are agents for Alexis. They initially set this up. I was just trying to assist with adding the information. I hope Vanbros.com knows what they are doing. Referring to (Alexis Railsback - one of the subjects of this delete discussion. Legacypac (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator is now simply redirecting other pageant winner articles without comment or discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If they aren't part of this nomination this should be dealt with (or not) elsewhere. Redirecting isn't against the rules and if you disagree it's likewise within your right to revert. But to be sure if he/she is redirecting after AfDing there's a problem. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I've redirected a few articles (not from this list) without debate. There are thousands of these out there. If you don't like that, you can recreate them and if they fail notability, they get AfD'd. See also this deletion now closed. [1] Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - in unlikely case that any of them are truly notable, a deletion review can be requested on individual cases. Due to the high volume of drek here, I think blowing up wholesale is the only way to handle - and at least we can restore any individual article which can be proved to pass GNG. Mabalu (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect there are a number of articles that have been created for the Miss USA 2015, contestants. They ought to redirect to Miss * USA for the respective states e.g. Madison Guthrie ought to redirect to Miss Alabama USA, Kimberly Agron ought to redirect to Miss Alaska USA etc. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the one sentence "articles", Keep the others. There is a wide variety of individual notability which can't be assessed in a mass AfD (each individual needs researched to do that). That only leaves quality as a quick hit. Redirecting the useless one sentence sub-stubs will take care of the majority of the problem articles on quality grounds. Others can then be dealt with properly (one at a time), if needed, as some are definitely notable. "Delete all and let someone else deal with it later" is not an acceptable position. The default is keep, and for those wish to delete to try to shift that burden ("you can go to DLEREV if you want them back") is not how thing work around here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You provided no specifics as to why any of them are notable. Others assessed each one as not worthy of an article - so can you be more specific? Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is clear - it is not possible to properly evaluate 40 articles on an individual basis in one AfD. Anyone who claims to have researched the GNG case for each individual is most likely lying (and I don't think anyone is actually claiming they did so anyway). Such evaluation involves a lot more than clicking on the article and seeing it does not currently have any sources. Proper research would take 15-30 minutes per person, and would be lost in a sea of "delete all because I can't be bothered to research" votes anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is clear, yeah. It also goes against deletion policy, which explicitly allows bundled AfDs. If you don't like bundled AfDs, the Deletion policy talk page is the place to try to get consensus for your POV. Like that good faith you're assuming, by the bye, that anyone claiming to have done due diligence must be a liar. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. This is how mass AfDs always go - they either end in keep because "all X are notable" (rare) or no consensus because "some X are notable and individual X didn't receive proper attention." The option deletes are arguing is "all X are non-notable" which is not a possibility because the GNG can always override failing to meet some specific criteria. The default of an AfD is keep. If a subject (as an individual, not as an X) doesn't receive proper discussion, the discussion ends in no consensus defaulting to keep. Votes such as "if any of these people are notable, someone can take them to DRV" and efforts to force keeps to list sources for 40 articles simultaneously are trying to say the opposite - that the default is delete. That isn't how things work.

The more articles you list in one AfD the more likely it is to end in no consensus. A multi-AfD only makes practical sense if you are talking about a couple of closely relate subjects (e.g. a guy and his band), not if you are talking about 40 subjects only connected by the fact that they participated in the same contest. That is like saying I can nominate 40 different basketball players who played for Kentucky in one AfD because merely playing college ball doesn't make you notable. Of course many went on the have pro careers, and others meet the GNG, but hey I can point to one thing that they have in common that doesn't make them notable so it is up to you to prove each one is notable while I don't make any effort to check myself and say "delete because playing college basketball doesn't make you notable." If someone wishing to delete can't be bothered to make the effort to evaluate individuals separately, in is utterly unfair for them to expect others to do so either.

Incidentally, I checked 3 of the nominated articles at random. I easily found 2+ sources for each. Now, the sources may not hold up to scrutiny. However, no one can honestly scrutinize 40x2+ sources in a single AfD. Since some kind of sources exist, again the default should be keep in the absence of specific arguments against the quality of the sources.

The only real solution that complies with both policy and common sense is to redirect the useless articles (which is most of these) and renominate the others one-by-one AFTER first checking if the sourcing that can be found is substantial enough and reliable enough or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all In my opinion, none of these meet WP:NMODEL. Even the ones who have more than a one-sentence article do not meet any of the three criteria. BenLinus 1214^talk 22:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I think WP:NMODEL isn't a perfect fit but per point 1 ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.") each contestant has had significant roles in notable productions. For example, Madison Guthrie has significant roles in the Miss Alabama USA and Miss USA 2015 productions. - Dravecky (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Being in the pageant production as one of 51 compeditors is not a "significant role". In a movie there might be 2-10 significant roles tops. Legacypac (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, it's not a perfect fit, and national-level beauty pageants are not movies. - Dravecky (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All you can really say is they don't meet it my virtue of being in the Miss America pageant. Without researching the individuals you can't say they don't meet NMODEL for some other aspect of their career, and you especially can't say they don't meet GNG without researching each person (which is the only actual requirement to be notable). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 28 January 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.