Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quincy Washington

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. One incident does not normally make someone notable for wikipedia. Should reliable sources be found that indicates that this person is notable for multiple notable events, there is should be no prejudice against recreation—suitably cited and supported. -- Avi (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Washington

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

Only claim to notability was winning a game show Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems less than notable. - Schrandit (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hey, we already have an article about Quincy, Washington, "a city in Grant County, Washington, United States". The population was 5,044 at the 2000 census. Mandsford (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple assertions of notability, and not just the one. The article has a bunch of references and external links that need be incorporated into the article as inline citations... and that seems a call for regular editing through WP:Cleanup, but not for deletion. I will grant that his name, plus inclusion of "contest" or "winner" or "Election" in searches give a great number of false positives... but is the degree of difficulty in sorting through all the permutations a reason to not do so? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-Weak Keep - I think the external links/references (or some of them at any rate) just push the subject over the general notability guideline. Of course, the links need a lot of cleanup (as does the rest of the article), but that's no reason to delete. I might even do a bit of it myself if the article's kept and time permits, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep seems like it is very much less than notable, but if the article is cleaned up and inline citations made then it could be good DRosin (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. The notability seems to arise from only one event.--Pink Bull 20:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I hardly think the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Notable only for a single event. If we had a WP article for every person who's ever won a game show, we would have a mess on our hands. SnottyWong talk 00:36, 30 November 2009 (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.