Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nichole Mead

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 (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nichole Mead[edit]

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

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon where the information is best presented in context as part of a list. The proposed redirect does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. She did not even win the title, but got it when the winner was invalidated. Update: See source analysis below before telling us this is well sourced. Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks notable enough to have her own page. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, obvious notability supported by the sources present in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not the criteria. Being Miss Lane County 2008 or having parents is not enough to justify a standalone article - the question is WP:NOPAGE - what in the article is important? which your stock KEEP response to every single AfD on a pageant article does not address this issue. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and WP:GNG does count where the article is sufficiently sourced. Placing a full article into a simple name mention in a list does not conform with Wikipedia policies which allow vast numbers of Pokémon articles. By the way, deriding an editor as having a stock KEEP response is not precisely the sort of comment which will affect the close of any AfD. Collect (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Said editor is at ANi trying to have me topic banned for trying to separate winners that have some additional claim to fame worthy of an short article from those with nothing that goes beyond what fits neatly on a list (and perhaps a mini-bio on the event page). A demonstrated belief that every pageant winner is notable and to heck with GNG or WP:NOPAGE or WP:NMODEL should depreciate the weight placed on their non-assessment. Legacypac (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I have already opined at the noticeboard in that matter. Lists are nice - where there is insufficient sourced material about the person found in WP:RS sources to warrant an article. Collect (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. WP:NMODEL is not an issue here. - Dravecky (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This cut and paste analysis is so inaccurate it and all opinions on related articles should be disregarded. See cite list below. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These cut-and-paste nominations are overreaching, dismissive of the humans involved, and strangely personal to the nominator for some reason. That the article is thoroughly-cited, carefully assembled from many reliable sources, is how biographies of living persons should be built. - Dravecky (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should be topic banned then for you can't see that routine coverage of local pageants and links to prove someone did not compete in something are not substantive. Don't pontificate on my motives, I'm just cleaning up here. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike some pageant title holders, this one has reliable sources ranging over many years, meets gng, and has plenty of info for an article. Jacona (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NMODEL is an issue because it is the closest thing specific category that covers the fact the girls parade around stage in various outfits to be judged. Her modeling career consisted of a single event she did not win. She did not win the state title - she only was the backup when the winner was later disqualified for residency issues.

This article is cited to death, but fails spectacularly in RS sources or to prove any significant accomplishments. Only cite 28 is directly related to winning a title. Only Cite 29 covers anything she did while holding the title.

Cite 1 [1] used to justify the statement she won Miss Lincoln County (not a valid reason for an article) is actually covering she was in the Top 10 out of 22 in Miss Oregon. It reads like a press release complete with detailed scores and is WP:ROUTINE coverage in a small town news outlet.

Cite 2 [2] is also a press release based article - not about her, but about the event. She gets a short formula bio along with 21 other girls. Not significant coverage of her - only the event.

Cite 3 [3] is a list of contestants (Miss America is smart enough to use a list, we aren't) where she has a thumbsize photo, name, local title, Platform TBA and Jazz dance for talent. Not substantive coverage. Note she is NOT listed as the winner here, another girl is.

Cite 4: [4] is "local person wins award" coverage of her winning Miss Lane County against 9 other girls (Not notable award for Wikipedia) but not the sweeper contest.

Cite 5: [5] 2007 Miss America's Oregon list (like cite 3) where the subject IS NOT ON THE LIST! [4] and [5] are used to cite a whole sentence "In 2007, Mead did not win a qualifying local pageant title and so did not participate in the 2007 Miss Oregon pageant.[4][5] They could also be used to cite you and I did not compete in Miss Oregon in 2007.

[6] is a deadlink to Miss Lane County - past title holders where presumably we would have seen a list. Not encyclopedic

Cite 7 [6] another Miss America LIST confirming she lost at state level.

Cite 8 [7] the free library a bunch of random news but near the bottom "Kelly Dorius, Miss University of Oregon, and Nichole Mead, Miss Lane County, each earned Top 10 scholarships of $1,000."

Cite 9 [8] another Miss America Oregon list - where you will not find the subject of this article. Used to cite "Mead did not participate in the 2009 Miss Oregon pageant. It could also be used to cite you and I did not participate.

Cite 10 [9] Miss Lane county page citing she won Miss University of Oregon, not a notable award either and not a RS.

Cite 11 [10] another Miss America Oregon LIST (see WP:NOPAGE to prove she did not win again.

Cite 12 [11] promotional facebook post, "I am so excited for our year ahead! Congrats to Miss Marion-Polk County 2011: Nichole Mead, 1st RU Havilah Hunt. And Miss Marion Polk County's Outstanding Teen Jordyn Greene, 1st RU Emily Curtis, Miss Congeniality Jordyn Greene. People's Choice, Michele Wagner!!!" Not what we call substantive coverage in RS.

Cite 13 [12] another Miss America LIST proving she list again.

Cite 14 [13] anouncement for Miss Oregon event. Her name and local title are somewhere in a long list.

Cite 15 [14] actually an article about the 4th runner up in a Portland paper which name checks the subject here as a runner up. Not substantive coverage.

Cite 16 dead link but appears to be a LIST (see WP:NOPAGE of girls who won scholarships at a local level Miss Three Rivers

Cite 17 dead link but was the guidelines for Miss Three Rivers

Cite 18 [15] anther Miss America Oregon LIST (see WP:NOPAGE confirming she lost again.

Cite 19 [16] Local news "Rachel Berry wins Miss Oregon title, Marli Marion selected Miss Outstanding Teen at Scholarship Pageant" where in a couple paragraphs we learn some other girl won Miss Oregon. No mention of this article subject.

Cite 20 [17] Miss Willimate Valley takes Oregon Crown. Article is about the winner mainly but near the bottom it says "Fourth runner-up was Allison Cook, Miss City of Sunshine, who won a $1,500 cash scholarship. Third runner-up was Shalese Curle, Miss Coos County, who won a $2,000 cash scholarship as well as Miss Congeniality’s $500 cash scholarship. "Second runner-up was Kayla Bowker, Miss Klamath County, who received a $2,500 cash scholarship and the $2,500 Spirit of Katie Scholarship in honor of Katie Harman, the only Miss Oregon to be crowned Miss America. First runner-up was Nichole Mead, Miss Three Rivers, who received a $3,500 cash scholarship. "

Cite 21 is dead link but headline is "How long did Miss Oregon live in the state. Eligibility questioned." so we can tell this was about Rachel Berry (also up for deletion).

Cite 22 [18] is about Berry stepping down. The subject is name checked "The first runner-up was 24-year-old Nicole Mead of Three Rivers. Pageant officials had not officially declared that Mead will become Miss Oregon. Kayla Bowker, 21, of Klamath County, and 18-year-old Shalese Curle of Coos County were the second and third runners up, respectively."

Cite 23-27 (see article) are all about Rachel Berry's fall because she did not update her drivers license long enough before the Miss Oregon pageant.

Cite 28 [[19]] Nicole Mead is the New Miss Oregon. This is the first substative coverage after 27 cites about minor contests or how she lost or did not compete.

Cite 29 [20] she meets some children at a local event. Routine WP:NOTNEWS

Cite 30 [21] reads in its entirety "University of Oregon alum and Newport native Nichole Mead, Miss Oregon 2012, will visit the UO on Feb. 14 and give a speech about scholarships from the Miss America Organization. The speech will take place at the Veterans Memorial Building on Willamette Street@@checked all links@@ at noon. She’ll sign autographs at The Duck Store at 2 p.m. Mead graduated from the UO in 2010. On Saturday, Feb. 16, she will attend the crowning of Miss University of Oregon." WP:NOTNEWS

Cite 31 [22] is about the new Miss Oregon Allison Cook (also at AfD) with no mention of this Bio Subject other then if you look closely - Mead is seen putting the crown on Cook's head (nothing about her in the caption either).

Cite 32 [23] is about Cook, no mention of Mead at all. Substantiates that Cook is the next Miss Oregon.

Cite 33 [24] says she is headed to Miss America. Not substantive coverage, but nice photo.

Cite 34 [25] is a nice WP:NOPAGE List where down near the bottom we find Mead got $3000 for being a non-finalist.

Cite 35 [26] dead link - a wedding announcement - we should be so happy for her.

Cite 36 dead link, but its a "For the record, marriage license applications" in a local paper.

Cite 37 [27] Mead's, while now Zahner's LinkedIn profile.

Cite 38 [28] "Who's on the move" routine listing of 33 people changing jobs. Nice WP:NOPAGE list.

Cite 39 [29] profile of Dana Phillips who is retiring from running Miss Oregon/ Mead is name checked at the very bottom as taking over (with two other women) Phillip's duties.

Based on this, we must DELETE and redirect to the Miss Oregon list. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should respect consensus, and avoid being dismissive towards other editors. We should be civil, we should not shout imperatives. We all have had a chance to read your arguments, you should respect our good faith arguments as well, even if you disagree. We appreciate your hard work on this subject; please respect ours as well. Jacona (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not shouting, and I'm not posting misleading statements about sources like some editors. The closing admin will evaluate the strength of the arguments not just the number of votes. Given your analysis of the sources do you want to stick with your vote or change it? Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Placing words, such as "delete" above, in all capital letters is shouting; please don't do that. If I were to decide to change my vote, I would strike it out and replace it, as is the custom. Please don't badger editors who don't share all your opinions. Jacona (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2015 (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.