Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Ohio Teen USA

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Ohio Teen USA[edit]

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

No indication of notability; all coverage in reliable sources (of which the article cites none) is in the form of "X was crowned Miss Ohio Teen USA in 20YZ". That's not enough for an encyclopedia article about the pageant. Besides, the current content is not in the least sourced and raises WP:BLP issues. Huon (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has now been appropriately referenced. PageantUpdater (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with that. There is one appropriately referenced sentence in the article, plus another appropriately referenced line in the table. The vast majority of the content is still unreferenced; the BLP issues still persist. If this represents the best available references, it should at best be turned into a one-line stub. Huon (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of a series of articles that encompass all of the individual state competitions and there is no reason to single this one out for deletion. Although sourcing generally can be improved in most (if not all) of them, that in itself is not a proper reason for deletion. I also note that the Rhode Island competition was recently put up for deletion on essentially the same grounds as argued here, and the result of that discussion (here) was Keep. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC) correction by NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This to me looks like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No argument is presented that the organization and/or event meets our guidelines of notability. It's simply not possible to write a meaningful article on the pageant that's based on reliable secondary sources. Huon (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "other stuff" essay gets bandied about quite a bit, but discussants often forget that much of that essay addresses situations in which comparisons with other articles is appropriate. It is particularly appropriate to cite other articles if those articles establish a relevant precedent. And that's what we have here -- we have articles on each of the other state-level run-ups to the national competition, with no argument whatsoever as to why this particular state-level article should be treated any differently than the other fifty. Huon, if you truly believe that the state-level articles should not exist, you should go to the Beauty Pageant WikiProject's Talk page and start an RfC. If the community agrees that they should all be deleted, then that's what will happen. But as things stand right now, the community has not decided to do that and to delete this one article, but leave the other fifty in place, will serve only to thwart Wikipedia's goal of providing comprehensive coverage of the topic.

I'm also a bit puzzled by your concern that it will not be possible to "write a meaningful article" on the pageant. The instant article is a list-class article -- the only need for sourcing is to verify the accuracy of the list. The discussant above has already shown that on-line sourcing was possible for some of the years. And there is no reasonable doubt that off-line sourcing can be gotten for all of the other years, if only because these events would have been covered by the daily newspapers in the cities in which they were held. Furthermore, one thing I noticed about the newly-added cites is that they didn't always come from the city in which the pageant was held -- newspapers in other Ohio cities also covered the event. Indeed, the McGinn article for the 2012 winner was picked up by the Associated Press. The sourcing is out there, waiting only for an editor to spend some time in a microfiche reading room. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article (or list, or whatever) is not much worse than many of the other 49. I don't think it should be treated any differently - all of them should be either deleted or pruned until they comply with WP:V and WP:BLP. But I need to start with one, and this happened to be it. I disagree that accuracy is the only criterion we should care about; that's not supported by WP:LISTN. I also disagree that the given references "verify the accuracy" - they don't, for much of the content of the list. I also disagree with the assertion that local news coverage of the individual pageants would suffice; compare WP:NEVENT. That's the kind of routine news coverage that explicitly doesn't confer notability. Huon (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personally, I'd lean to delete, but if it was cut down to just a properly sourced list, where all BLP violations had been removed, then that would be a very, very weak keep. Most, if not all, of the references are run-of-the-mill routine local news coverage. This has never been acceptable on its own to establish notability. Blackmane (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with NewYorkActuary, especially in light of the result of the Rhode Island AfD. Completeness is a virtue in encyclopedic coverage, and attempting to cover assorted state pageants in the national article would be unwieldy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:02, 12 July 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.