Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Webb

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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, and I was quite close to calling this one an outright keep. Many of the rationales for deletion amount to assertions of non-notability, and there is nothing here that refuted the points made by e.g. Lowellian. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Webb[edit]

Katherine Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really notable for anything other than ESPN not being able to take the camera off her during the BCS National Championship game. Although she was Miss Alabama, she hasn't won any other notable pageant. If you look at the other "Miss U.S. States" women on the template at the bottom of the article, you'll see that most have other modeling/pageant info on them. She has only won a single pageant and is famous mainly because of social media, therefore I believe the article is irrelevant. Thechased (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete- This women's primarily notability was a minor controversy, and Miss Alabama is not enough for an article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Save-As long as wikipedia includes Kim Kardashian, the bar is low enough to let this one over. User:Liptonius|(talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's a bad comparison, since Kardashian has a TV show and a ton of coverage. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Although I agree with the nominator, she has suddenly become notable because of the ESPN commentator, she is notable for Miss Alabama but not notable enough. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sweet Jesus please. No. Of course not. Some old guy says something about some young girl, she kisses a hot-shit quarterback, people follow her on Twitter, and we have a Wikipedia article. No doubt Dream Focus will be here shortly to argue that Miss Alabama is in fact a position giving notability, but it ain't. Roll Tide, and delete this quickly. Come on man. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't there some sort of precedent where winning a state level pageant was enough for notability purposes? Don't get me wrong- I think that it'd be better to have something along the lines of List of winners of Miss Alabama USA pageant listing all the winners and redirect there for all winners that don't have individual notability. I just seem to remember a lot of AfDs closing with "keep" because a state level win was considered notability enough.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Re Tokyogirl's question, we already have an article for Miss Alabama USA, which lists all the winners; indeed, Ms. Webb's bodacious photo is at the top of that article.. My recollection is also that a lot of state winners have been kept on the basis that winning a state pageant (and the coverage attendant thereto) conveys notability. While I appreciate where Drmies is coming from, I also think this case is not so easily dismissed; Webb has now received substantial coverage for two different events so she can't be categorized as a WP:BIO1E case. My own inclination would be to let this article hang around for 6 months or so and then come back and see if she has disappeared from public view or not. But I certainly understand the reasoning of the delete !votes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Drmies has an interesting Auburn-Alabama problem, like that happy couple does, incidentally. But if there is "controversy" (our buzzword for "trivia"), it's for the old guy's article, not for this one. And winning a state pageant, I don't see how that is enough grounds for notability. Where does it stop? Clanton, Alabama, has a Miss Peach competition in like a dozen age categories. And maybe the Homecoming Kings and Queens at major land-grant institutions then should be notable as well: they generate local coverage. How notable is Miss Alabama 2012, with the cut-off date for news coverage set at 1 January, before anyone outside of the state of Alabama knew who she was? This notable: zero hits. Someone who's better at searching through coverage may come up with more, but I think it should be clear that before the old guy's remarks (that's a controversy? I should apologize to the country to, since I just farted in these here United States) there was no way she would pass the GNG, which leads me to believe that such a title alone does not make one notable. Drmies (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A slippery slope argument? The state level is an easy bright-line cutoff, just as we have articles for all the state governors but relatively few for town mayors. - Dravecky (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If winning a state-level pageant has previously been deemed enough notability, I think we need to revisit that. As for the "controversy", that is is bunch of trivia, nothing more. Yeah she's pretty, but next year no one will no who this woman is, unless she does something else. LadyofShalott 05:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Given the plethora of coverage that has happened to this women lately, in addition to her being Miss Alabama (I would presume she then competed at the national comp)I presume that she is notable. I would like to respond to Arxiloxos that notability is not temporary in regards to coming back in six months. Either she is right now, and it stays. Or she isn't, and it goes. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know and support WP:NTEMP, I cite it myself all the time. But as a practical matter, sometimes we see bio articles that are kept the first time through and then when they are reviewed later, everyone says, "why did we ever think that person was notable?" My hunch--just a hunch--is that this could be one of those times--or, alternatively, she might have her own reality show in 6 months. One way or another, the situation is likely to be a lot clearer. As far as whether she's notable right now . . . well, in the real world sense of the world, obviously she is; in the Wikipedia sense, it's a borderline case.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Along those lines: what was the name of that woman who wasn't involved with that general but there was something about her email and it caused a scandal? If you have to look it up I can rest my case... Drmies (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fame is not the same thing as notability. Without looking it up, who was the 7th man to walk on the Moon? (And nobody's proposing we delete the David Scott article.) If everybody knew all this stuff already, we wouldn't need an encyclopedia. - Dravecky (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drmies et al. She would have to claim the national title (she didn't) or something else extraordinary to be notable. This article is of the opinion that Miss Alabama USA isn't even a particularly notable pageant when compared to the older Miss Alabama pageant. I like the way they sum it up. Altairisfar (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Kate Middleton vs Kim Kardashian comparison is cute but notability is not a competition (and we have articles on both ladies, not just the princess). The Miss Alabama USA pageant has a ~60 year history. - Dravecky (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another beauty pageant winner who doesn't meet notability guidelines-63.141.199.99 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The subject is doubly notable, as pageant winner and for the BCS NCG, so 1E does not apply. She has now received national media coverage on at least three occasions -- for Miss Alabama, for Miss USA, and for the BCS NCG. The article at the time this nomination opened was little more than a stub, making her appear less notable than she is, for instance, not (at the time) mentioning that she also went on to finish in the Top 10 of the Miss USA competition, or just how extensive the media coverage of the BCS NCG incident was; Donald Trump has now also offered her a position as a Miss USA judge. This is an article which needs expansion and improvement, not deletion. Moreover, we have prior precedent: Webb is at least as notable as other Miss Alabama winners who have articles: Madeline Mitchell, Rebecca Moore, Haleigh Stidham, Jessica Tinney, Tara Gray, Paige Brooks, Candace Michelle Brown, etc. —Lowellian (reply) 13:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revisit in six months as per arguments above. Things should be clearer then. Mabalu (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lowellian UW Dawgs (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the double notability mentioned above. She would have been borderline notability before this incident, but now the notability is clear. StAnselm (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been quiet on WP for a while, but several years ago I was on the forefront of developing and clarifying the notability standards at WP. The primary objective of having a notability standard for people is to prevent vanity spam, which would otherwise flood the project. I value WP as a reliable resource for information on many topics, especially people. Of course it is also paramount that we respect the privacy of living people as well. I was shocked to see this article proposed for deletion. I see plenty of references, she likely met the notability standard prior to the bowl game, and this does not appear to have a controversial aspect which contravenes her privacy or reputation. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keepfor sailing across the verifiability and notability (per WP:PEOPLE) thresholds. Being named Miss Alabama USA is a "well-known and significant award or honor" and all the recent coverage adds only to her fame, not her already-established notability. - Dravecky (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • MarginalI think a reasonable argument has been made that she meets the notability requirements by a very narrow margin. Miss Alabama USA may be a well-known award, but there's two prongs to that test. It also needs to be a significant award. This is hardly significant any more than Miss Mongolia would be. Many of the winners of Miss Alabama have no pages. Looking at some who do, many look like vanity pages with no encyclopaedic relevance. Is Haleigh Stidham's interest in playing with yorkies notable? I think if we look there are plenty of pages that might be even less marginal. This article could easily become a section within 2013 BCS National Championship Game or A. J. McCarron or Brent Musburger until she becomes more notable on her own rights. The page isn't there because of her awards, but because of the controversy over what Musburger said. Her award might arguably count her by the letter of the rules, but the actual context behind the reason for the page is not the award, but the controversy. --AlanK (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- between her pageant title and the recent controversy, she satisfies WP:BIO. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: although, on the one hand, this discussion can be viewed as simply another display of debating points between deletionists (Rationale for deletion) and inclusionists (Arguments against deletion), on the other hand, it presents another opportunity to establish or enhance standards for inclusion of certain groups or classes of individuals acceptable as subjects of biographical entries. While it would have been somewhat more favorable for inclusion arguments had this Katherine Webb article been created before January 8, 2013, and not in response to the publicity cresting on that date, the fact that it was created because of the publicity, may be ultimately immaterial (the previously mentioned Jill Kelley article, created in response to the publicity regarding her role/involvement in the Petraeus scandal, was quickly nominated for deletion, deleted, immediately recreated and, following another discussion, retained). It's not even specifically a case of WP:Other Stuff Exists, although such consideration does play a major role. Furthermore, even though we have the Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends, containing, as of this writing, 116 names, one presumes these women have at least as much fame as Katherine Webb, and most of them, it may be argued, have little, if any notability. It may almost seem counterintuitive that she is being nominated for deletion because she attracted too much attention and publicity, while other "wives and girlfriends" are not "notable" enough to even rate a deletion discussion. Ultimately, if Wikipedia is already inclusive to such a degree as to contain an article on every cricket player, baseball player, hockey player, tennis player, baseball player, footballer and Olympic athlete who ever played for any major team or participated in any Olympic Games, and then there are wrestlers, actors, local politicians, etc, to the degree that winners of major statewide beauty pageants, who subsequently represent their respective states in nationally televised annual events, would seem to have at least as much claim to be subjects of articles. While this discussion is about an American pageant winner, any winners of equivalent beauty contests held in other countries or, for the purposes of English Wikipedia, at least those in the English-speaking world, would, needless to say, have equivalent standards for inclusion.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I did not know Wikipedia is nothing more that a popularity contest now?

Like it or not As Ms Alabama & as the Alabama's QB's girl friend she is now famous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.253.177 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. She was quasi-famous as a pageant winner, is suddenly more famous as a result of the football game, and it was reported on the Sports Illustrated website last week that she's going to be in this year's swimsuit issue. She's already notable, and getting more notable all the time. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katherine_Webb&oldid=1137966470"