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) 10:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [1] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation of the user's ban.[2]Legacypac (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
Speedy keep because the nominator fails to give a reason for deletion. The nominator only brings up WP:DENY and if the article fails that because significant edits were made to it by other editors, then he has no rationale....William 15:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator did link to rationale in previous nomination, that the subject does not meed requirements of wp:NMODEL. I kinda agree they could have explicitly stated that here, too, but they did link and it saved space; they did provide a reasoning different than wp:DENY (which also has merit). --doncram 21:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment after I closed the group afd on 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 ) 16:09, 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. –Davey2010Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has a couple of references to third party reliable sources. Passes WP:GNGWordSeventeen (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After thinking about this, this article is about one event. In 50 years we will still probably say she is a law student with such goals, and have no way to know what she actually did. She is not in the public eye enough to keep the article up-to-date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I may quote WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." - Dravecky (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per User:Johnpacklambert (and noting User:Dravecky's response). I agree, there's no indication this person is in the news for anything more than one event. It doesn't suffice that her winning the Florida state-wide crown was reported in several Florida papers (e.g. [this one, not cited in the article, among several that can be seen in Google News search link above). It won't change if there's local coverage of her appearing at local events, as part of the one-year "reign" as Miss Florida or whatever is her title. It's still one event; it's appropriate to draw the line that this level does NOT merit coverage in an encyclopedia. --doncram 21:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has been covered in depth by (at least) 2 reliable sources and is therefore notable. BLP1E does not apply. That guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news story, not prevent bios of people "known only for one thing" (which is the vast majority of notable people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG with multiple citations in reliable, third-party sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:19, 14 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.