Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Heaston

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. Clear consensus to delete. Regarding the ongoing RFC, my suggestion would be to make a note of this title, and wait for the RFC to finish. If it turns out that the emerging standard would have resulted in this AfD ending differently, there's always WP:DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Heaston[edit]

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

The alleged fact that she was the first African-American to win the Miss Illinois USA title might be enough to make her notable, but I don't think it is. Even more so because it seems no newspaper in Illinois cared that she won the title at all. The only people who seem to have cared were newspapers connected with either her hometown in Tennessee or the place she had gone to college.John Pack Lambert John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Illinois USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2007 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable pageant contestant. If and when the subject becomes independently notable then an article can be created. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 03:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination.

The question become whether to delete or redirect this article. I advocate deletion for two reasons: (1) maintaining a BLP on a non-notable person is a potential invasion of privacy; (2) the redirect assumes that the person would never be notable for anything else, which I've seen elsewhere described as "insulting". :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm often a defender of the usefulness of local sources, but the campus newspaper at someone's alma mater is very definitely not an independent source, and beyond that I don't think this subject has anything close to enough coverage to write a balanced entry. (Frankly the absence is rather striking but until we have a secondary source commenting on that...) I agree with K.e.coffman's concerns about privacy and redirect--thanks KEC for bringing it up as the redirect problem wouldn't've occurred to me, but now that you mention it, I agree it's better avoided in this instance. Searching WP for "Mia Heaston" will still bring up her name in the list of winners on that pageant's page, which is the better way to account for the info that she won--as a matter of due weight, is one way to put it. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KEC's and Innisfree98's analysis. Even assuming that a student newspaper can be considered independent/third-party/reliable, the coverage is still routine and run-of-the-mill; doesn't constitute significant, in-depth coverage. Neutrality^talk 19:09, 6 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.