Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Tollett
- 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. Please, folks, everybody is welcome to participate in these discussions, but let's keep the conversation to merits of the articles. Personal attacks are never useful or welcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Lisa Tollett[edit]
- Lisa Tollett (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)
This article is a completely unsourced mess of how this women had fleeting brushes with greatness. It has sat tagged as being based on primary sources for 4 years, but it is based on NO sources. Per NOPAGE it should be deleted and a redirect sent to Miss Tennessee USA where her name should properly be listed. Legacypac (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: This nominator is apparently nominating a bunch of U.S. state pageant winner articles, and clearly has no clue about notability, unfortunately.--Milowent • hasspoken 06:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Do not delete my edits[1], please, or I will have you deported to Pluto.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I did not delete your edit, I struck an irrelevant off topic personal attack. You've now had two chances to comment on the topic, not me, and have failed to do so, so your vote has no relevance. Merry Christmas Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I guess it is "personal" that I have observed you have a deficient understanding of notability standards, but I did not mean that to be an attack. I think editors do you a disservice when they don't point out what you are doing wrong, otherwise how can you find out that your nominations are unhelpful? I'd rather you only nominate truly non-notable pageant people, we do have lots of spam around here, and people who like rooting out spam are more effective if they don't nominate articles of actually notable people. My vote is 100 times more relevant than yours because I actually reviewed the article, adding readily available sources.[2] Your vote and nomination is so irrelevant its like a 700-page future history novel where Jersey Shore has 7 seasons instead of 6. You get to page 700 and question whether Michael Sorrentino would still appear in Marriage Boot Camp in this alternate history and they leave you high and dry and feeling like you've wasted a lot of time, just like anyone who actually reads this entire comment by me. And for that, I am indeed sorry.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. I don't know anything about the show you are talking about, but I can't see how minor pageant wins, having a twin sister who is connected to someone famous, or dating a NASCAR driver but breaking up with him and marrying someone else does much to justify an article here. Once you remove all the TMZ stuff you get down to her winning a state pageant. There is no policy except WP:NMODEL that covers that, which she fails spectacularly. I'm baffled how a person can be top of the world news, charged with terrorism offences in the US Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enrique_Marquez_(accomplice) and people say 'no article' but then users defend pageant winner articles where they barely get 'local person wins award' WP:ROUTINE coverage for making zero impact on anything or anyone other then providing some entertainment for a few hours as part of a staged production. Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- The "let's delete something in the news" AfD is a separate phenomenon, it draws a different breed of nominator. Being a U.S. state pageant winner in the Miss America or Miss USA pageants almost always generates enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, at least from any reasonably sized U.S. state, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney Barnas (2008); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julianna White (2010); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Hartley (2012). Tollett gets mentioned in her local regional paper a ridiculous number of times even in recent years, every time she advises some other pageant person, I didn't think it worthwhile to cite those instances.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. I don't know anything about the show you are talking about, but I can't see how minor pageant wins, having a twin sister who is connected to someone famous, or dating a NASCAR driver but breaking up with him and marrying someone else does much to justify an article here. Once you remove all the TMZ stuff you get down to her winning a state pageant. There is no policy except WP:NMODEL that covers that, which she fails spectacularly. I'm baffled how a person can be top of the world news, charged with terrorism offences in the US Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enrique_Marquez_(accomplice) and people say 'no article' but then users defend pageant winner articles where they barely get 'local person wins award' WP:ROUTINE coverage for making zero impact on anything or anyone other then providing some entertainment for a few hours as part of a staged production. Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I guess it is "personal" that I have observed you have a deficient understanding of notability standards, but I did not mean that to be an attack. I think editors do you a disservice when they don't point out what you are doing wrong, otherwise how can you find out that your nominations are unhelpful? I'd rather you only nominate truly non-notable pageant people, we do have lots of spam around here, and people who like rooting out spam are more effective if they don't nominate articles of actually notable people. My vote is 100 times more relevant than yours because I actually reviewed the article, adding readily available sources.[2] Your vote and nomination is so irrelevant its like a 700-page future history novel where Jersey Shore has 7 seasons instead of 6. You get to page 700 and question whether Michael Sorrentino would still appear in Marriage Boot Camp in this alternate history and they leave you high and dry and feeling like you've wasted a lot of time, just like anyone who actually reads this entire comment by me. And for that, I am indeed sorry.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Tennessee USA#Winners, as it seems to me that this is a case where WP:BLP1E is failed. However, redirect are reasonable, plasuible search terms, and cheap. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Every one-time Olympic medal winner should be a re-direct under this theory of BLP1E.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not a big sports guy, but Olympic Medal winners have to go through multiple competitions of skill (World Cups etc) and generally have a sports career that involve developing skills. These pageant holders show no such track record - they can basically show up and win their first event with some couching, as evidenced by some of the interviews. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- You're making a value judgment as to whether someone has done something to deserve notability. Most pageant winners in the United States (like Tollett) have done many pageants before winning a major U.S. State pageant. But the issue is whether the subject meets WP:GNG as a result of their accomplishments; that why winners of crappy pageants like "miss middle-earth continental tourism" or whatever get deleted. The sports "rules" for notability on here are ridiculous, someone plays one top level game in American professional baseball and he gets a page. And football is even worse, with article on referees (e.g., Cristina Dorcioman) and other incredibly minor people. In comparison, Tollett has been the subject of adulation and acclaim in Tennessee for years. It may also be for something dumb, but people care about it, so its notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please note criterion #3 of WP:BLP1E. For Olympic one-time medalists the event "[is] significant and [their] role [is] both substantial and well documented", therefore your comparative argument is unfortunatly a bit of a straw man. The sports notability rules are not "ridiculous". If you participate at the professional level, you are notable. With pageants, national paegant winners should be considered notable for winning. Pageants at the state level, however, don't rise to the same level of notability. "People care about it so it's notable" is also a fallacy - I could link about a half-dozen arguments to avoid that are close variations on that; WP:LOCALFAME may be the most on-point. If pageants at the sub-national level are to be considered notable, there needs to be a demonstrated WP:CONSENSUS (even if the description of it is "only an essay") of the same sort as WP:SOLDIER for instance. In the absence of such an expression of consensus (and I am willing to stand corrected if I have missed one) I have to fall back on BLP1E for cases like this, which, no matter how delightful the ladies in question are and how popular they are in their home states, I can't see as passing criterion #3. (Also, if she (and the other pageant winners in question here) have indeed been the "subject[s] of adulation and acclaim...for years", where are the reliable sources outside of the burst of coverage for the one pageant win?) - The Bushranger One ping only 06:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- One-time Olympic medalists are often complete nobodies playing sports people only care about once every four years. Yes, this is a value judgment. They get one burst (or even less than that) of coverage and that's it. When I say "people care", I mean they care reflected in the coverage which meets WP:GNG. Whether they should care or actually do care is irrelevant.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- It may be a value judgement, but it's a value judgement that's reflected in long-time, rock-solid WP:CONSENSUS. Again, I'd be more than happy to change to "keep" if there is coverage available that shows they meet GNG outside of the one title, per BLP1E #3 - is this coverage available? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- One-time Olympic medalists are often complete nobodies playing sports people only care about once every four years. Yes, this is a value judgment. They get one burst (or even less than that) of coverage and that's it. When I say "people care", I mean they care reflected in the coverage which meets WP:GNG. Whether they should care or actually do care is irrelevant.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please note criterion #3 of WP:BLP1E. For Olympic one-time medalists the event "[is] significant and [their] role [is] both substantial and well documented", therefore your comparative argument is unfortunatly a bit of a straw man. The sports notability rules are not "ridiculous". If you participate at the professional level, you are notable. With pageants, national paegant winners should be considered notable for winning. Pageants at the state level, however, don't rise to the same level of notability. "People care about it so it's notable" is also a fallacy - I could link about a half-dozen arguments to avoid that are close variations on that; WP:LOCALFAME may be the most on-point. If pageants at the sub-national level are to be considered notable, there needs to be a demonstrated WP:CONSENSUS (even if the description of it is "only an essay") of the same sort as WP:SOLDIER for instance. In the absence of such an expression of consensus (and I am willing to stand corrected if I have missed one) I have to fall back on BLP1E for cases like this, which, no matter how delightful the ladies in question are and how popular they are in their home states, I can't see as passing criterion #3. (Also, if she (and the other pageant winners in question here) have indeed been the "subject[s] of adulation and acclaim...for years", where are the reliable sources outside of the burst of coverage for the one pageant win?) - The Bushranger One ping only 06:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- You're making a value judgment as to whether someone has done something to deserve notability. Most pageant winners in the United States (like Tollett) have done many pageants before winning a major U.S. State pageant. But the issue is whether the subject meets WP:GNG as a result of their accomplishments; that why winners of crappy pageants like "miss middle-earth continental tourism" or whatever get deleted. The sports "rules" for notability on here are ridiculous, someone plays one top level game in American professional baseball and he gets a page. And football is even worse, with article on referees (e.g., Cristina Dorcioman) and other incredibly minor people. In comparison, Tollett has been the subject of adulation and acclaim in Tennessee for years. It may also be for something dumb, but people care about it, so its notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I have rethought my previous positions. While in theory the title of Miss Tennessee USA is more than just winning a competition, in the realm of actual coverage it is just that. Titles like Miss America get more than just winning coverage, but not titles below that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I think AfD would be improved if people used less confrontational tones and refrained from attacks on other people. Saying someone has a deficient understanding is an attack. I see both sides of this debate, but think that we need to delete basically all the state winner articles, and then maybe allow a few to be recreated that are on truly notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comment on content, not contributor, please. clpo13(talk) 09:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 09:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Comment on content, not contributor, please. clpo13(talk) 09:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 09:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Pageant winners without any other claims to notability don't really need their own separate pages. Lithorien (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- That has no basis in policy. Another case where I wish we had more women on wikipedia.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is not an anti-woman issue. In fact, many argue that the whole industry is offensive to women.[3] I'm happy to see non-notable male models/pageant winners deleted/redirected too. Nearly all my similar nominations have now closed as delete or redirect but this one keeps getting relisted. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for failing WP:ANYBIO. Not known for anything other than "also ran" in a beauty pageant. State title holders don't meet WP:PAGEDECIDE on that alone. Blue Riband► 14:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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.