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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlea Evans[edit]

Ashlea Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unspectacular fashion student who was the first to be eliminated on Big Brother 6 (US). Surprising for me, she previously survived two AfDs: 1 and 2. What is equally surprising is that the article has not progressed beyond a pathetic stub despite the previous attempts to delete. There is precious little about the individual of note: Scores 292 unique Ghits, almost all of which I would consider trivial: the overwhelming majority are from sites which advertise or discuss Big Brother/Reality TV. The CBS site is probably the most reliable articles around about this individual, but this is show marketing and thus not independent. There is an article on when she interviewed Soledad O'Brien. She also had a few photos taken for Maxim. -Edit: my bad, they are of someone called "Jenn" Most of the others are blogs, chat or forum, and fail WP:RS. Ohconfucius 07:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. We need to stop having pages for every little-known reality contestant. -- Scorpion 14:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments on first Afd. --Djsasso 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but the result of the afd from just about a month ago was "keep". So unless something has significantly changed here, I'm recommending keep the article to remain consistent with previous afd discussion. (If we don't generally abide by the afd keep decisions, there will never be any closure on otherwise potentially controversial decisions.) Dugwiki 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I'm afraid you are wrong: neither January 2006 nor September 2006 were "just over a month ago". ;-) Would people think about this article any differently if this were the first nomination? I wish editors would address the central issue of whether this is an encyclopaedic stub with sufficient independent relevant, reliable information to populate? Ohconfucius 06:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected - make that "a few months ago" for the September/October afd. The rest of my comment still applies, though. Unless something has changed in the article or policy or consensus since that last afd, why is this being renominated? Dugwiki 17:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was mentioned in defence of an article about another contestant which was eventually deleted, in the name of consistency. Ohconfucius 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, as you pointed out in the Osten Taylor afd, each article is being considered on its own merits. It's not so much a matter of being "consistent" with Osten Taylor as consistent with the previous afds for this article. Just because Osten was deleted doesn't mean this one necessarily should be. Dugwiki 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I doubt she is notable, but I think people should not keep trying to continually reverse keeps that they dont approve of. It interferes with the working of AfD. DGG 08:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge since it would appear her article is not being flesh out, she should then be merged into the main article Big Brother 6, unless more relevant information can be added to article to raise it from stub class.
• Keep Though I would say merge if this were the first time this article was nominated for deletion, the fact remains that this article was already up for deletion not once, but twice already... both time resulting in a decision to keep. Therefore, I have to vote the same way I did last time. We can't just keep putting things up for deletion until we get the desired result. C'mon. A-Supreme 00:32, 21 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.