Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Jones (2nd nomination)

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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Jones

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet notability guideline for biographies, and claim to fame is being on Survivor, which does not indicate a need for a separate article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Adding the following article for the same reasons.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it does seem like she has done other things, and was the founder of a charity and had other TV appearances. However there is too much on her presence on Survivor suggesting that that is the key to her notability. Playlet (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine coverage from regional sources. That Lakers thing is a non-story since no one was disciplined or charged for it.Trillfendi (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"regional" or "local" coverage is not a factor in WP:BASIC. WP:AUD is for organisations (and is a garbage guideline), WP:GEOSCOPE is for events, there is no corresponding requirement for BLP. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just truly do not see notability here. Trillfendi (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK KEEP per Playlet FOARP (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll grant that it's too long and should be trimmed back, but the article meets notability and should, ahem, survive. XF641D9K (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are y'all just going to keep "relisting" until you get enough delete votes? That doesn't seem like an honest process. Once again, it's a too-long article that should be trimmed considerably but not deleted. XF641D9K (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: XF641D9K (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Comment. Both subjects also fail WP:GNG, as mentions of them are trivial at most. Thus both fail WP:NBIO as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2019 (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.