Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadine Stroitz

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 Procedural keep. Most of this discussion has to do with the circumstances under which the AfD were created, and not about the article itself. So, this keep closure has no prejudice against speedy renomination, if anyone wants to discuss the merits of the article rather than the merits of the deletion nomination. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 02:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Stroitz[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. This was listed for CSD on the basis that the notability claim appeared to be false, ascribing her with a beauty pageant title that was actually held by someone else — however, the speedy nominator appears to have erroneously conflated two related but distinct titles, Miss Austria (granted to the winner of the competition) and Miss Universe Austria (granted to the runner-up), and the subject did actually win the title that she's claimed to have won. Accordingly, I've declined the speedy and am bringing it here for wider consideration. That said, however, there is not currently any consensus that beauty pageant titleholders are automatically entitled to a presumption of notability just for holding a beauty pageant title — only two of the subject's predecessors as Miss Universe Austria actually have Wikipedia articles, and only a couple of the women who have held the Miss Austria title have articles either. Rather, a beauty pageant winner has to actually be the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to get past WP:GNG on her own dime — and with only one blurbalicious "reference" in a primary source, that has not been demonstrated here. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing improves, but it frankly needs to be deleted in its current state — officially, however, I'm not casting a "vote" as this is a purely procedural nomination. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 22:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR This is not a valid AfD nomination, but WP:IAR can still apply if this is a "high priority" AfD. While it is a BLP, I don't see contentious material in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a valid AFD nomination, as the article does not contain a single reliable source to properly establish her notability. Her notability has to be established by sources that are specifically about her, not by merely asserting it — and so far, every last one of the new sources that have been added since I initiated this nomination are still either primary sources or unreliable Blogspot blogs. I'd be happy to withdraw this if legitimately reliable sourcing can be added, but as winning a beauty pageant title does not confer automatic notability on a person even in the absence of reliable sourcing, she's not entitled to keep an article in this state. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. I seem to remember from previous discussions/AFDs that if it's a national/international title in a properly notable pageant, then that is notable. She won Miss Universe Austria, which means she will go on to represent Austria in Miss Universe, and that seems sufficient. I will note that I don't necessarily agree that she deserves an article, but we have a precedent for accepting basic articles on holders of such titles (definitely not runner-ups or anything lesser, though). For the record, I have equal feelings of indifference to people getting an equally flimsy stubby little article just because they were on a sports team at some point, and that's not even holding an international title like "Miss My Country." Mabalu (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We keep properly sourced articles about beauty pageant titleholders, yes. We do not keep such articles if they're referenced exclusively to primary sources and Blogspot blogs. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If one google-searches her name using the "News" filter, there is much media attention, mostly in different languages, probably translatable. Another indication is pageviews which, while not an official test, correlate (in my experience) with notability. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 10 results, non of which have any significant coverage. That is not "much media attention". Pageviews are also irrelevant here, because many of them are result of the article being nominated for deletion, not of subject's notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but she's fast; she placed third in an important race. Enquiring minds might like to know not only her notable speed, plus the fact that she is from Carinthia, is a health trainer, height 175cm, plus she probably likes apples and likes to be groomed and might have four matching shoes. 175cm! Big news. Yes, Vanjagenije coming around to your way of seeing things, kind of weird how much attention a person gets by simply being beautiful.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - per the discussion above. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2014 (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.