Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Cox (Miss Kentucky)

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Cox (Miss Kentucky)[edit]

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

Cox is only notable for being Miss Kentucky. There is nothing else about her even remotely worth noting. Winning Miss anystate is not enough on its own to make someone notable. The sources are heavily local, many just the college paper of her college. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 00:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnpacklambert, Did you just look at the article? If so, would be fair to say that even if everything you say is true, you don't know whether or not this topic is Wikipedia notable? Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did searches on google, but came up with nothing. The burden is on those who want to keep the article to find sources that indicate additional notability, there is no burden to assume such exists. I did do a search, but found nothing promising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:ATD is a policy, and since this topic is also covered at Ricky Lee Cox, WP:DEL8 is not a deletion argument. Relevant policy and guideline text is cited at WP:INSIGNIFICANCE. Further, the creator of the article, diff, has not been notified, which by itself would prevent a closing administrator from closing, although this last point could be easily remedied. Unscintillating (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{admin help}}. Pinging an administrator to adjudicate the speedy keep. Unscintillating (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creator does not need to be told (it is nice to do) - The three steps at WP:AFDHOWTO does not say that you must tell the creator. Claiming WP:NPASR after only 2 days is a bit quick. Let it run it's course, it won't hurt. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've been watching this AfD and, now that I'm here, I'll comment and say the concerns here are at there's simply nothing beyond the Miss America pageant, to suggest any actual convincing notability for her own article, there's nothing else to examine here since that's all there is, therefore delete. SwisterTwister talk 01:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reason for defying our WP:Deletion policy? Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was originally closed as no consensus because there is a lack of Wikipedia consensus on the matter on December 6th, after I presented some issues to the closer, and another editor argued that these should be considered on a case by case basis, the administrator who closed gave permission to reopen this discussion. I primarily state this so the time frame when this discussion has actually been open can be clearly seen. It was closed from early December 6th (about 7 GMT) to about 14 GMT on December 9th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may not have been explicit enough in the nomination. This article has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet the general notability guidelines. That is reason #8 given for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL8 exists within the context of the remainder of WP:Deletion policy, which includes the WP:Alternatives to deletion. Ignoring the WP:ATD creates risk of harm to the encyclopedia, just as would be the case here. Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable beauty pageant contestant; such pages are routinely deleted as BLPs that lack sufficient RS to meet GNG. This is the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is a notability guideline that does not mention BLP.
As for the premise that the article contains BLP violations, ones that would justify a WP:DEL9 deletion, do you have any examples of such problems in the article?
As for the assertion that such deletions are "routine", I have in the past searched for AfDs closed citing WP:DEL9, and they don't seem to exist. Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say anything about BLP violations. This article is a biography of a living person (hence, BLP). K.e.coffman (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Ricky Lee Cox. No significant coverage in independent sources to meet GNG. She's already mentioned in her father's article, which is about as much as is warranted at the moment. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:07, 12 December 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.