Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carly Mathis

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. A Train^talk 07:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Mathis

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

Mathis' only notice has been winning Miss Georgia. This is not enough to show notability. The sources here and other sources are all just local sources reporting on this at the time, not enough to create actual notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this person clearly meets the WP:GNG for significant coverage. Coverage is not "just local", as suggested in the intro above, but includes many distinguished newspapers and TV stations across several states. The claim "just local" is strongly misleading as one would think that the person was only covered in the local press around her place of residence and nothing is further from the truth. It is a good and important practice not to demean WP:BLPs. Kudos to User:Geo Swan for improving the referencing after this nomination! gidonb (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The coverage all comes from Georgia, it is by no means nation, and it is not long-lasting. It is no more than we expect from any other beauty queen, and in no way shows the subject is at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet another ridiculous claim! WAVE (TV) is from Kentucky, WIS in from South Carolina, WXIX-TV is from Ohio. Kentucky and Ohio do not even border Georgia (US state). None of your statements hold any water! gidonb (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It may be run in Kentucky, but if we look at the article, it has a Georgia by-line, and is about county comissioners passing a fluff resolution, this is all fluff, no substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adequate indicia of notability beyond being a beauty queen. "Just local" comment doesn't cut it, GNG can be met by a figure of statewide notability if significant and third-party. Article has been expanded and improved, GNG met. Montanabw^(talk) 07:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, excellent point! Coverage is not only across many states, but also throughout Georgia, a state with more than 10 million residents... gidonb (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are still all passing mentions, not the type of quality coverage that shows actual notability. Lots of passing mention does not show someone is notable. We need more, and better coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are these passing mentions if the articles are about Mathis? Your ridiculous claims here and elsewhere prove that you should not be part of any AfDs because all you do is mislead people, have articles on women removed, and replace these by articles on obscure Mormons worldwide. gidonb (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WIS article os not in any way about Mathis, it is about the beauty pageant itself. The WAVE article is about a fluff action by a county comission, not the type of article that adds towards GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WXIX from Ohio is also in no way a substantial coverage of Mathis. It is actually the same article that ran in South Carolina, word for word. It is about the pageant, not in any way, shape, means or form about Mathis. Name dropping is not the stuff of passing GNG. The previous keep votes have significantly misrepresented the non-coverage involved here, and totally misconstrued GNG. The discussion on beauty pageant articles agreed they either need significant, indepdent, multi-state coverage of the subject, not just name dropping of the win itself, or sustained coverage for points unrelated to the beauty pageant itself. Neither of these are met by what amounts to name dropping articles that are repeated by stations in multiple locations without saying anything substantial about Mathis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance outside of the pageant career, and that alone has been established at AfD to not be sufficient to keep an article. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. Nothing stands out about this subject; the article consists mostly of trivia, as in:

"Mathis’ platform is “Heart Health and Heart Safety” and she said she hoped to work with the American Heart Association..." etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep covered in multiple reliable sources. Georgia is not a small region. Antrocent (♫♬) 07:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 10 October 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.