Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Salas (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Salas[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

fails WP:BIO1E. John from Idegon (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 (Regular) Delete I don’t see this as a 1E situation as she competed in two pageants 3 years apart, but regardless she doesn’t pass WP:BIO, no significant coverage in third party sources. ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 00:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CJinoz: Not a comment on the discussion, just pointing out that the content is different between the current and deleted versions. To be honest, the deleted version was far more developed than the current one (not to mention it was 3259 bytes - about 64.6% - larger). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I admit I overlooked that nuance of G4, although I would have assumed the content was similar enough, apparently not. I was surprised that the nomination didn't mention the previous deletion, I made the mistake of trying a friendly heads up on the nominator's talk page and got my head bitten off. ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 22:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Salas meets and surpasses the notability index. Not only she won titles of significant distinction, but also gained notoriety afterward. Caballero/Historiador^⎌
Caballero1967, you might wish to reconsider your words here. There is nothing whatsoever in the source you proffered that indicates she's done anything to gain "notoriety", which, in case you didn't realize it, is a charged, negative word. All your source (btw, a passing mention that has no bearing on notability) verifies is that indeed, she has never won a state level pageant, which, even if she had, would also not show notability. Your words are very close to a BLP violation. John from Idegon (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you're incorrect there, she won Miss Nevada Teen USA, competed at Miss Teen USA 2004 & made the top five, assumed the Miss Nevada USA title and also made the top five at Miss USA 2007. That still doesn't mean she meets BIO but just a correction to your statement that she "never won a state level pageant". Also @Caballero1967: it wasn't Salas who gained "notoriety" it was the original winner that year Katie Rees, Salas just took over the title after she was dethroned. Article states that clearly in the only sentence about her. ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 22:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Wuao! Thanks for your spirited (and perhaps condescending?) chance to expand, and @CJinoz:, for pointing to Salas’ winning of titles (which should have included the 2004 one). Btw, according to some, Salas’ notoriety in the article derives from the circumstances that led to her enthroning (a weak argument for me). Still, I think the stub article needs serious help.

In short, 1) she holds two prominent titles (2004 Miss Teen Nevada and 2007 Miss Nevada); 2) the way she won the last title set her apart and generated buzz (e.g., “Rees was replaced by Helen Salas, who went on to earn the fourth runner-up spot at Miss USA.”); 3) her amorous experiences catapulted her again to the top of the media buzz (i.e., International Business Times and Daily Mail), plus other minor mentions. Caballero/Historiador^⎌

Just holding titles isn't enough to establish notability, we need significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, and gossip stuff doesn't really hit either point. "Buzz" does not equal notability ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 21:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CJinoz: I used “buzz” in a more general way than you did. And the 2017 consensus on the Daily Mail (which you linked) also notes that when combined with others, it may actually be used as a reliable source. Nevertheless, for me, the argument for deletion is faulty because there is actually significant coverage here and from reliable publications (e.g., Review-Journal, a reliable source according to this discussion).

The most important point of the argument: the news of the affair and manner in which Salas won the 2006 Miss Nevada title crossed various national and language barriers, with more examples than I care to show at this moment. And, to add to her exceptionality, she won, not one, but two titles, which generated its own media. The first point alone should satisfy WP:N and more. The rest of the buzz, is just that: buzz, in the way you used it. Caballero/Historiador^⎌

But you still haven't provided evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you can provide that I will happily change my vote. ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 01:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete short of winning Miss USA, contestants are only notable if they have some other reason to be notable, which Salas lacks, so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the level of her awards does not grant inherent notability; therefore to have notability she must have significant coverage in multiple reliable publications. Since she does not, she fails the notability test of the guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2018 (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.