Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss South Dakota

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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss South Dakota[edit]

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

non-notable local pageant, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jaw) @ 14:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 14:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 14:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep State wide beauty pageants are notable....William 19:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Major state wide beauty pageant, winner goes on to compete for the title of Miss America, the oldest and most prestigious beauty pageant in the United States. Easily passes WP:GNG. This nomination is flat-out goofy, and a total waste of everyone's time. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should look at the sources given in the article (zero, to be exact) and the lack of independent sources on Google. The Banner talk 19:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page lists a significant number of articles relating to the topic. Admittedly, most of them are from South Dakota itself. This page shows at least a few giving the topic some significant coverage, or, at least, giving some winners and candidates significant coverage. I tend to think that they are probably enough for a keep, although I suppose it would also be possible to merge maybe this particular state pageant, and potentially at least a few other similar state pageants, to one of the more central articles on the Miss America pageant. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a significant number of articles? 576? I think we disagree about the definition of "significant number". The Banner talk 20:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, two articles dealing with a subject as a primary topic is sufficient to establish general notability. As I said, most of those listed are from the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader and the Rapid City Journal, but those are the two leading newspapers in the state and could reasonably be counted, I suppose, as the best sources for information in that state. I acknowledge however that there are no particular books that I saw dealing with tht topic, but the same could probably be said about most state level beauty pageants, and even most national level beauty pageants. If the local sources are insufficient for this particular pageant, then they probably are for most of the other local/national pageants as well, and it might make sense to consolidate all of those marginally notable pageants. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Combining the South Dakota list-article and some other state's list-articles for state-level Miss America beauty pageants into a longer list-article of some or all of them would not reduce the amount of coverage or the usage of space in Wikipedia. Of course there is state-level newspaper coverage of each one, and state-level television and other coverage, and there is reliable source coverage in every state. It's an editing decision to combine or split the state list articles, and keeping them split is fine and is better in my view (it works better for putting them into state categories, for linking from other state articles, and all are probably long enough to be separate on a basic editing level, etc.). Editor John Carter has a valid point that some of the less-documented Miss America state pageant articles could possibly be covered as sections in a List of Miss America state pageants (currently a red-link) or some similar central article. But the Miss America article is already too long and could not contain such a list. The separate state pageant list-articles are already indexed in a navigation template ({{Miss America state}}) but not otherwise indexed, as far as I can tell. Simply keeping this and other state ones separate is best, in my opinion. Nothing to be gained by any change proposed in this AFD, IMO. --do ncr am 21:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable - can't any reasonable person see that?! Bearian (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For the unreasonable out there, please read WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. The Banner talk 08:53, 3 January 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.