Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Roundtree

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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Roundtree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

She was Miss New York USA. This is not a title of a level to establish notability. Her other claim to fame is ranking in the top 147 in American Idol 8. That is just totally not a claim to notability at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In addition the article was created by a user under the name Dani Roundtree. This makes it seem highly likely that this article represents a conflict of interest edit, another reason not to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss New York USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO1E; the subject is otherwise not notable. I advocate deletion as the name has not likely became well know to serve as a useful search term.

The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place: here, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; and (2) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There is no indication that state-level winners would be presumed notable for the win alone. Thus "keep for now" comment is not a valid argument in this discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator blanked most of the text of the article, which I have now reverted. While it could be interpreted as a request for deletion by author, it looks more like sour grapes, so I will not move for CSD G7 and instead let this AfD continue on to conclusion. Nileshjambhulkar (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nileshjambhulkar: I don't see any blanking in the article history. Are you perhaps referring to something else? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user and others have been leaving similar remarks on many unrelated AfDs, in an apparent attempt to disguise their sockpuppetry and single-purpose account nature at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kjiva. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My news sweeps didn't come up with much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2016 (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.