Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Debus

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. T. Canens (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Debus[edit]

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

Debus is Miss Delaware 2016. The coverage of her is all local and related to this one event, it is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines and justify having an article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable. Won Miss Delaware and will compete in Miss America, clearly significant in her field. Over 20 sources in the article and a google news search returns 87, many of which are not trivial coverage and focus on more than just one event: take this story about her 3 months after she won Miss Delaware published in the state capitol's daily newspaper. Just because they're local sources doesn't mean they don't qualify for the GNG. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Winning Miss Delaware and competing in Miss America are all one event. The state capitol of Delaware is a very small city, its daily newspaper not very significant. The clear turn of discussion on this issue as shown when it was discussed on the beauty pageants wikiproject page is that the coverage needs to be either non-local, or to go beyond coverage of beauty pageants, which the coverage here does not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep It doesn't matter the size of the state, whether it's Rhode Island or Alaska what difference does the size of a state make in terms of notability? 208.79.11.74 (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a policy-based comment? SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable state-level pageant career; per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, which states, "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable.
WP:IGNORINGATD further states, "The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history. If merger and/or redirection is feasible in a given case, either is preferable to deletion. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds." Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only claims of significance are for participation which itself means nothing since these events have such different levels, nearly anyone could have an article at their basis, even ones who never advanced to the next events, hence not significant. With this, we're not a model listing webhost. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "claims of significance", as per the essay, WP:Credible claim of significance, "Any statement which, if reliably sourced, would be likely to persuade some of the commentators at a typical articles for deletion discussion to keep the article is a claim of significance." Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per Google definition 3, a model is "3. a person, typically a woman, employed to display clothes by wearing them." Beauty pageant contestants are not models. Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A review of Google News shows that the 2017 Miss America contestants, specifically including the topic here, got coverage in USA Today, Yahoo India News, Canada, Germany's Welt and more than one UK outlet. Note that it is not necessary to refute the assertion that coverage is local, because local coverage contributes to notability under WP:GNG. I did some minor cleanups on the article. Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this "being covered" in the UK press something like this [1] article from the daily mail, with a picture of Debus emphasizing her shoes? This is not the type of significant coverage notability is built on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is, so you need to explain the relevance. When I search Google News for "Amanda Debus" "Daily Mail" I get three articles: 10 July 2015, 8 September 2016, and 10 September 2016. Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point is the standard is significant mention, not passing mention. These are all passing mentions, not significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG doesn't use the term "passing mention" or "significant mention". Nor does WP:GNG require prose. It says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." While the coverage in any one picture with a caption in WP:GNG terms is minimal, it is not trivial...it is direct and detailed.
I looked at the 10 July 2015 article, and in there you can see facial blemishes in the "nomakeup" picture. The point for notability remains that there are two closeup pictures of the topic, with captions, in an overseas newspaper. Unscintillating (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures with captions are never enough to make someone notable. Being able to see "facial blemishes" is not at all a plus. If people actually paid attention to the value of arguments this article would have already been deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This argument does not refute the point that this one British article is minimal WP:GNG significant coverage, and thus contributes to WP:GNG notability; WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
The argument seems to agree that while that is what the GNG guideline says, anyone reading this AfD should just know what the GNG should be saying. But if that is correct, why not state what the GNG should be saying? Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Similar to SwisterTwister above, these contests do not automatically result in notability for every person who wins them each year. 1292simon (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2017 (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.