Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Williamson

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 delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Williamson

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a beauty pageant winner, with no evidence of the depth of reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:GNG for it. Of the six sources here, two are small community weeklies that don't count toward GNG, two are university student media outlets that don't count toward GNG, and the only two that are actually worth anything at all, because they're actually in real major market daily newspapers, both just glancingly namecheck her existence in the process of failing to be about her. As always, the mere holding of a beauty pageant title is not an automatic freebie that entitles a person to keep an article that's referenced this badly -- she has to be the subject of enough genuinely substantive media coverage to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (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.