Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alysha Boekhoudt

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. clear consensus for this particular individual in the group of nominations DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alysha Boekhoudt[edit]

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

Non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Miss Universe contestants are notable. The fact that there's a template on the page showing that literally all the other contestants at that competition have articles should have told you that. Smartyllama (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not (unless they pass WP:GNG, and Alysha does not). The template should be deleted as well, I'll nominate it too. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Many articles have been written to promote beauty pageant contestants by a paid sockfarm, but the existence of those articles does not make those people (and others who have also been in pageants) notable. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HotelCoupons.com and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ForRent.com. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Miss Universe is probably the best-known pageant in the world; national level winners are notable. There are a lot of other pageant articles that are non-notable, but this one is. Montanabw^(talk) 11:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#RfC_about_the_draft_SNG. Beauty pageant contestants who do not meet WP:GNG, like this one, should not have an article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Aruba § Titleholders, where the subject is mentioned, per WP:ATD-R. Valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a person who represented her nation at the highest-level of competition in her field. It is reasonable to presume that there are reliable sources beyond those that already appear in the article, even if those additional sources have not yet been found. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Actually we have a RFC that says that it is NOT reasonable to presume the existence of reliable source for beauty pageant participants. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#RfC_about_the_draft_SNG I used Google and my conclusion was that the subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG. http://www.cracked.com/article_19880_5-dumb-hobbies-you-wont-believe-have-world-championships.html The person who won the Rock Paper Scissors World Championships (the highest-level of competition in her field) in 2008, Monica Martinez, got more press (heck, some of them are reliable sources!). [1] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. The recent RfC was called to discuss whether a particular draft guideline should be endorsed as "official", and it is inaccurate to suggest that the result prohibits any presumptions as to the existence of sources. Nor could it ever have reached such a result, because that would contradict the very presumptions that have long been accepted in many other areas in the entertainment realm. Thus, we do not demand multiple references for any person who has played baseball at the major-league level, nor for any cricketer who has played at the Test level, nor for any athlete who has competed in the Olympics. The common thread in all of these examples (as well as the many others that could also be mentioned) is that they have participated in structured competitions at the highest levels in their field. As for the "Google test", it is well-nigh useless in cases where the competitions pre-date the digital era or where the sources are most likely to have been written in languages that do not use the Roman alphabet. An insistence on using the "Google test" will only exacerbate the dual problems of recentism and systemic bias.

The Rock Paper Scissors counter-example was amusing. And if the World RPS Society ever gets around to sponsoring a structured system of international competition, perhaps we'll need to have a discussion about it. (But I trust that neither one of us will be holding our breath waiting for that to occur.)

Thanks again for the comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2017 (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.