Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edlyn Lewis

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 redirect to Miss Georgia USA. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edlyn Lewis

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

Three are 3 sources in the article, none of which are anywhere near reliable, indepdent, third party sources giving substantial coverage. The first is said to be a listing of previous winners of Miss Fulton County. Even if it is more than just a directory as a winner of that title I do not think it can be considered fully indepdent of her. The other two are an article from the Georgia Tech alumni magazine and an article from the Georgia Tech student newspaper. Neither of these is indepdent enough to be worth considering. Georgia Tech has an interest in boosting the reputation of its students, this is just boosterism. While the claim she was the first African-American Miss Georgia USA might seem notable, I think we would need coverage to show that people actually felt this was significant to justify playing it up. Venessa Williams becoming the first African-American Miss America in 1983 seems to have gained attention, it is not clear that Lewis being the first African-American Miss Georgia USA in a competition held in 1997 was at all noted, and even less evidence it has continued to be noted. Futher searches on Lewis bring up less stuff than usual. A Linkedin account that seems to say very little about her (not a reliable source anyway), and an IMDb link that may or may not be for her, but is for someone doing additional production assitance on a TV show, not the stuff of notability. The google-newspapers search gives up the likes of a Spartanburg South Carolina paper with a caption only photo with Lewis and several other Miss USA contestants huddling behind towels.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on mobile, so my formatting may be terrible, but let me see if I can put forward some thoughts. I'd want to consider that any press coverage from the time might not be online. I used Georgia Tech sources because I went there and I'm familiar with them; I'd be surprised if there weren't more somewhere. I think it's improper to assume that the Technique is boosterism, it's always had independent editorial control... critiquing it for covering Georgia Tech topics is like critiquing the Atlanta Journal Constitution for covering Atlanta news. Also, I assumed that *any* winner of the Miss Georgia USA would be notable, and that articles about those winners would help combat our systemic bias against articles about women. Being the first African-American winner in a state that is traditionally fairly racist is a big accomplishment. Disavian (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The clear consensus of the recent discussions is that just being Miss whatever state USA does not make someone default notable, although exactly what that means is hard to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: Not notable per WP:GNG that states "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". Arguing combating systemic bias by just creating articles on any girl or woman, that then would surely include the Naked news anchors, is not real great. Arguing inclusion by following current practices according to WP:policies and guidelines is more practical. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, along with reliable sources, would still apply, especially with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Otr500 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should also be noted that Wikipedia does not have the purpose of righting perceived wrongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First African-American state winner from a Deep South state is a big deal. Groundbreaking. Computer science and an MBA to boot, GNG is there. Early Google period so will be hard to find a lot of sources, but this one meets WP:BASIC to me. Montanabw^(talk) 22:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. College newspapers are never reliable sources for notability. We will combat systematic bias better by additng articles about those women who are actually notable . DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails more than one section of WP:Notability. Miss Fulton County doesn't count towards notability nor does being a competitor in the Miss USA 1998 pageant in which she was listed as a non-finalist. This leaves the one win of Miss Georgia USA 1998 and per WP:BIO1E is one event which does not establish notability. Also, in my opinion, these "mini BLP's" should be speedy deleted when they are created in violation of "Biographies of living persons. Otr500 (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Georgia USA. Like most winners of this event, there's simply no grounds to support an independent biographical article. If there's a reliable source for her being the first African American winner of this state pageant, it can (and should) be included (with citation) in the "Notes" field of the table therein, but there's simply no grounds to break out this sort of minimal capsule biography into its own article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E and lack of RS. A redirect is unnecessary, IMO, since the name is unlikely to have become a valid search term. If the closer's determination is to redirect, I'd recommend Delete & Redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Georgia USA This is a WP:BIO1E and definitely not independently notable for an article on its own. But I guess a redirect here is fine as the subject is mentioned on the target page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2016 (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.