Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Mejia

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Mejia[edit]

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

She was Miss California USA in 2016. This is not enough alone to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable PageantUpdater (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes GNG. Also agree with PageantUpdater that these mass nominations, which seem to not consider GNG at all, are very problematic. p b p 19:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a mass nomination. This is a single nomination of a single article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite obviously @Purplebackpack89: was talking about the other 60 or so articles you've afd in the past couple of weeks. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not seeing how the claim that the sources pass GNG works. One source basically is "the daughter of someone notable won a local beauty pageant, and we only care because he dad was notable", notability is not inherited, and so coverage that is just about incidental actions of family members of celebrities does not help towards GNG. Others are from Diamond Bar sources, which is where she is from, and is the ultimate in local coverage. Another is a media interview with her. Interviews with the subject do not count for passing GNG, only articles about the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, not exactly. That Daily Mail article's pretty lengthy and all about her, not her pops. p b p 03:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto People --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Miss Cali is not enough, as the nominator mentioned. The only other mentions of her in reliable sources are due to a flubbed answer she gave to a question in the pageant. Those sources do not, in my opinion, raise her to the level required by WP:GNG CrispyGlover (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in article currently (sept2nd 2016) meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 4 September 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.