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 Weak keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Anderson[edit]

Camille Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

nn model, failed WWE Diva Search contestant, and no one who isn't full-time employed by WWE has an article, and many have been deleted, including, but not limited to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. The movie roles are bit parts/cameos at best. Prod was kept for a few days but removed by anon vandal. The 2nd nomination had just 3 users voting keep, but the arguments were very weak. She should not have a page. Booshakla 06:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: If at all possible, I'd like to point out that the previous AFDs were complete a long time ago, with little activity or hard evidence to keep the article and it was kept by default. So please read the previous AFDs and try to use evidence related to the subject and not the previous discussions. Booshakla 06:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete reason G4. -Selket ^Talk 07:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Caution, this is not G4, which is only used for AfDs resulting in delete. The last nomination (2nd) was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I clicked on the big link that said "2nd nomination" above, and saw the result was delete. I posted "speedy delete" not realizing that that link was to a different article. I'll be more careful in the future. --Selket ^Talk 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been through two recent AfD processes --Kevin Murray 22:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC):[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camille Anderson
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camille Anderson 2

• Keep I object to this shop for a jury AfD. If it was notable in the past two processes it should be left alone. --Kevin Murray 22:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's not a reason to vote that way. I have given links to 7 of these contestants, who have equal notability to Camille, and they have all been deleted. The 2 AFD processes (which are not recent, at least 5-6 months old) had very few users commenting, and the evidence was pretty poor, along the lines of "we don't need to delete everyone" or "she seems notable". The first one was a no consensus, and the other was posted far too soon compared to the first one. This article should be deleted like the others, no questions asked. Booshakla 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, AfD is all about asking questions and following procedures. Technically we don't "vote" at AfD we form consensus. You seem to perceive your judgement to be better than all of the AfD participants who suggested "Keep" and the admins who evaluated the consensus. Isn't that a bit arrogant?
• At my age 6 years is recent, 6 months is a blink.
• First AfD was 3 keeps and 1 delete.
• Second AfD was 3 keeps and 0 delete.

--Kevin Murray 02:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article has been improved with references and more text. Far from perfect, but it now makes the standards for notability and verifiability (ESPN and Austin Chronicle), with more than Diva to her credit: Ms Austin USA & minor appearances in major films; collectively she is noticed which is all that is required per primary notability standards. Also note that BIO is under dispute now. --Kevin Murray 03:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't agree with any of your opinions. The reworking of the article just affirms that she isn't notable under WP:BIO. Her part in Wedding Crashers was a bit part, she isn't listed on the first page of the IMDB profile page. The 7 AFDs I have listed are equally or even more notable than her, and they were all deleted. The sources you give don't pass WP:RS, and you need far more than those (and can't just be mentions in passing) to pass WP:BIO. And 6 months is a long time between AFDs, I don't care how you view time, that's not the issue here. A vast majority of users here would agree with me that 6 months is a long, proper time to wait before relisting. Booshakla 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are also clairvoyant and read the minds of the vast majority. Stop trolling the discussion in micro detail. --Kevin Murray 04:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to go, your arguments are laughable and crap. Booshakla 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note User Booshakla has been warned and blocked before, and is approaching the fine-edge again. --Kevin Murray 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Booshakla.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should have be relisted to generate more dicussion both times instead of closing off as keep. Should relist list the past votes and get an even bigger dicussion. 3 or 4 passing comments is not enough.--Dacium 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand, for sure, but keep. Did the subject suddenly become unnotable since surviving two previous AfDs? Jeff Silvers 04:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't survive 2 AFDs, no one commented on them, and they defaulted. Very faulty reasoning above, the 2 afds were total bunk. This article needs to go pronto, not notable, no RS, just total trash and should not be on WP. Booshakla 06:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were two AfDs. After each one, the article remained. How is that not surviving two AfDs? Anyway, I'm not an obsessive inclusionist nor am I a fan of Anderson's; I'd just rather see this expanded than deleted outright. Jeff Silvers 08:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn model, the past AFDs are not convincing (should have been extended), plenty of other diva search losers have had articles deleted, and a bit part in a movie and a bunch of non-reliable sources in passing don't merit an article. Biggspowd 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you expand on why you feel that ESPN and the Austin Chronicle are "non-reliable sources." Thanks! --Kevin Murray 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, the argument that "other diva search losers have had articles deleted" isn't valid enough on its own to justify deleting this article. Jeff Silvers 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Biggspowd has made nine contributions during his three weeks at WP, four of which have been to AfD's proposed by Booshakla. We shouldn't be too harsh here, but I wonder why he is invloved with AfD so soon? --Kevin Murray 01:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kevin Murray.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:17, 18 February 2007 (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.