Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lissette Garcia

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) 14:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lissette Garcia

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

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [1] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2010 by User:MissAmericaGirl who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has evently not checked the article. The creators username is a strong clue that they are part of the corporate article building effort, even if this acct was not caught and banned. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, the Miss America and Miss USA organizations are not related. Second, an editor's username doesn't always speak to their origins or motivations. (Or does "Legacypac" represent a conservative political action committee, as the name suggests, not a person?) Third, an article created 4.5 years ago by an uninvolved editor is by definition not part of a "mass creation of articles" by a "sock farm". - Dravecky (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I insist that you withdraw your insinuation that I am related to a PAC formed years AFTER I choose my username. As an Admin you should know better then to throw up such suggestions. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such insinuation as my whole point is that it's ridiculous to attempt to divine motive or identity from a username as you chose to with regards to User:MissAmericaGirl. For the record, I don't think you're a political organization nor is MissAmericaGirl part of "the corporate article building effort" that wasn't "caught and banned" as you accused the user. It's likely an apology is in order but it's to MissAmericaGirl. - Dravecky (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:33, 31 January 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 ) 16:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As far as Dravecky's heated Keep arguments go, I just looked back at his cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. He made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. He cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith.
Examining the article on the actual merits, the sources presented are primary and promotional pageant websites, other than this "firstcoastnews.com" link, which is broken. A Highbeam search for "Lissette Garcia" + Florida turns up nothing, and I'm really interested in hearing from Dravecky what significant coverage in reliable sources he claims to have found. Obvious GNG failure. Ravenswing 04:14, 1 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Dravecky "subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG." There are a total of seven references in the article across numerous sources. Notability has been achieved. In addition, I have researched numerous of the beauty pageant AFD subjects that this nominator put up in 2-3 minutes apart. I have easily found numerous verifiable reliable sources quite easily for every one I have researched by simply typing the names in google. It really strains my AGF to believe that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE before nominating all these articles for AFD. WordSeventeen (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even with various appearances in barely notable events, she still has had no significant role or coverage. Mentions in the press are not enough to establish GNG, and she fails the objective criteria for entertainers (not just models) etc at WP:NMODEL. You can't prove otherwise, and your opinion is just not enough when all you can find is WP:ROUTINE coverage of the event(s) that just mention her name. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The first source is pretty good - it's reliable and biographical. The rest are either questionable (for length or reliability) or not-independent, but collectively land me on the side of keep, just barely. An equally acceptable alternative would be to merge the material to Miss Florida USA. Either way, the content should be [[WP:|PRESERVE]]d. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 18 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.