Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paige Brooks

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Evidence of notability has failed to be produced during this discussion. Therefore, this article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Brooks[edit]

Paige Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking behind the issues the article has the subject appears not to meet (WP:BIO and/ WP:GNG.. Notability is claimed based on a vast array of entertainment & pageant roles but none of her acting roles appear major and a search of Google, Google News and Newspapers.com is failing to provide any reliable source material indicating significant coverage. The name is somewhat generic so I also searched with combinations of Miss Alabama USA, Miss USA, Price is Right and Men in Black but still failed to find anything. Admittedly given the timeframe she was most active it is unlikely there would be much on Google now but I might have expected something to show up in the Newspapers.com archive. In short, does not appear to meet criteria for inclusion. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- AfD's have been rejected on article subjects with less notability, e.g. Busty Heart, so it's hard to make a case for deleting this one. The PROMO and PEACOCK stuff needs to be removed or heavily modified, however. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    By the same reasoning, a lot of articles on pageant titleholders with some post-pageant career stuff like this have been deleted with far more in the way of WP:RS material. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I have unintentionally created quite an uproar here. I just want to take this opportunity to straighten out a few misconceptions and issues.

Firstly, I am Ms. Brooks' biggest fan!

I do not work for PaigeBrooks.com and the Paige Brooks article that I created 10 years ago is in no way affiliated with PaigeBrooks.com. I created it because I thought it was appropriate for this forum due to her level of recognition and honors.

Ms. Brooks' management team has been very kind to allow me to post photos, awards, etc. with their permission, when I asked. If you have any questions or want to confirm this information that I am providing, you can contact them. They are very nice. I contact them through the email address that is publicly available on the official website.

I am certainly and obviously not an expert at Wikipedia (this is the only Wikipedia article that I have ever done). I am not at all familiar with the guidelines and hope this is the correct way to get in touch with other users and administrators who have been taking issue of late.

Only now, after a recent update, have I realized that the manner in which I originally wrote the article and subsequent updates are not completely within the guidelines of your community. Luckily, through the years, I can see some of your experienced Wikipedia users have corrected my many mistakes and vastly improved the article.

The newest improvements are especially impressive. After 10 years of the article having my incorrect-for-Wikipedia writing style, I am happy to see that it meets the Wikipedia standards now.

I want to apologize for any previous, although unintended, guideline missteps. I never meant to upset anyone, although I am afraid some of my actions may have done so. I did not realize that those actions were breaking the rules. Most importantly, I do not want my mistakes to reflect on Ms. Brooks in any way.

I hope this note helps clarify things and that the article can continue to be included in Wikipedia now that it has been so vastly changed and improved, despite my inadequacies at creating and editing. Even after a decade, it is never too late to get things right. :)

I vote to keep the Paige Brooks article with the current, existing improvements.

Thank you for your understanding. missalusa (talk · contribs)

  • Redirect as mentioned above; rather clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. Lectonar (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have begun a basic rewrite of this article. I trimmed out most of the primary sources, and found new better references which I added to the article. Much information that was not present in cited sources has been removed. Feel free to add back anything which can be sourced to a reliable source. At thos time the article has the following sources:
  • USA/Teen USA USA Pageants". Miss Alabama USA/Teen USA USA Pageants. February 15, 2014. Retrieved March 21, 2017
  • "Paige Brooks". Paige Brooks (in Spanish). Retrieved March 21, 2017.
  • Press, D. (2004). Your Modeling Career: You Don't Have to Be a Superstar to Succeed. Allworth Press. p. 251. ISBN 978-1-58115-986-8. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
  • "The Price is Right Models Gallery: 2001 Model Search » Paige Brooks". The Price is Right Models Gallery. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
  • Willis, J.; Monush, B. (2004). Screen World 2003. John Willis Screen World. Hal Leonard. p. 80. ISBN 978-1-55783-526-0. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
  • Pignataro, Anthony (July 4, 2002). "Well-Respected". OC Weekly. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
  • "IMDb Salutes Hollywood Blondes". IMDb. September 24, 2014. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
  • "L'Vegue Magazine Aug 2016 issue". issuu. August 17, 2016. Retrieved March 21, 2017.

With all these sources including books, articles, and online sources the article subject passes WP:GNG, and has crossed the threshold of notability. This is not a one event situation since she has done several other reported and discussed things since her pageant win, including a named role in a major film, a continued role on popular tv show price is right, as well as being voted top 25 in vegas, plus the minor imdb award. I will continue to research her but @PageantUpdater you were right, many of the citations were misleading and did not verify statements in the article. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • All these sources are either passing mentions or extremely unreliable. See our reliable sourcing guidelines. Prevan (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agree with Prevan. Antionioatrylia has done an amazing job transforming the article but I feel it only lays more bare the paucity of significant coverage in reliable sources. One is a listing of all Miss Alabama USA titleholders from the official website, two are little more than image galleries, she does get a brief mention in one article but it's passing at best. As for the book references, I think there's good reason to question whether they even support what they've been cited for given the issues with many of the other citations. The most promising is the magazine but that again is just a brief mention in a list of "25 hottest people" which surely can't get her past GNG. BIO1E isn't at play here, I've always been firm in my opinion that these bios are about more than one event (and even more so here given the but part in Men in Black & appearing on Price is Right) but GNG just isn't met. Same conclusion I made when I nominated the article and hunted for any other coverage. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arguing that the book references might be questionable given the issues with many other citations, PageantUpdater said, there's good reason to question whether they even support what they've been cited for given the issues with many of the other citations. I can assure you that I read the source materials, and there is no questionability at all. It seems a poor argument and failing to show AGF to even make such a statement. Maybe try reading the sources yourself. I stand by my discussion points and my !vote in this matter. Antonioatrylia (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Antonioatrylia, I only suggested that because when I click the links to "Your Modeling Career: You Don't Have to Be a Superstar to Succeed" and "Screen World 2003" they both only show me the front cover and not the inside of the book. I'm curious as to how you were able to read the source materials, because I would be interested in doing the same? As you are well aware we've had to remove references from the article because, in your own words we've had to remove references because they don't cover what they are supposed to be referencing, eg "information statement not verified or even mentioned in reference". My point was simply that it's frustrating we can't get inside the books to confirm whether the information that's being sourced to that material is actually contained within it. That's a separate issue to my belief that none of the source material remaining or available on Google and a number of reference sites show significant coverage in reliable sources. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC

Not sure which browser you are using or what @PageantUpdater. The model book by D Press had a 3 1/2 to 4 page article. Even if it says there is no ebook availABLE, if you do sequential searches in the book, you can read large sections and chapters of books online. The best chance is google book search. Also if available download the free preview which may have what you might be looking for. If that does not help, I go ahead and buy the ebooks. Again, I assure you both of those two book references are solid, and support the statements which they cite.You can take me at my word. I spent like two hours on the article and did many searches. That one editor changed all our positive work today putting back most of the primary and unreliable sources we removed. I reverted back to your last stable version. I asked them not to add thAT stuff back in without first discussing it on the talk page in accordance with WP:BRD. Please keep an eye out there. Thanks. Antonioatrylia (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about the search feature *headsmack* thanks for that & for your good work with this article. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 06:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Alabama USA Sorry, but the sources are essentially barrel scraping. Many are also not reliable. For example,
  • Press, D. (2004). Your Modeling Career: You Don't Have to Be a Superstar to Succeed. Allworth Press - This is an independent publisher and the source is essentially self publihed
  • Willis, J.; Monush, B. (2004). Screen World 2003. John Willis Screen World. Hal Leonard. p. 80. ISBN 978-1-55783-526-0. - Screen world is essentially a directory recording films/events of the year
  • OC Weekly Extremely trivial mention and a quote. I could have been standing there and they would have quoted me
I would be happy if someone can show me actual significant coverage in reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete None of the sources give us the indepth coverage beyond local for winning the pageant needed to show a pageant winner is truly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article needs improvement, expansion. Not deletion. Several sources provides notability. BabbaQ (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain what sources provide notability and provide examples of her receiving significant coverage in them? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: I'd still be interested in an answer to the above question... --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable pageant winner; nothing stands out about this contestant and sources are just not there. The article contains uncited trivia such as
  • "Her philanthropy and volunteerism extend to her church, Junior League, animal rescue..." etc.
Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although this looks potentially condemned to a no consensus split based on views on policy, I am willing to relist this in the hope that further contributions to the debate will lead to a clear community view.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 1. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: With redirect as an alternative. Comments: This is a WP:BLP. Notability: The subject is not notable for a standalone article per WP:GNG and other reasons. The references for notability and for article content are not there. While I can appreciate passion, and someone being a BIG FAN, that ultimately means bias and when that is present no amount of WP:policies and guidelines will will be persuasive. Because WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is a feeble argument as best. We use reliable sources and present what those sources state, and anything else is WP:OR. We can not use a self-published source for notability, nor primary sources, or those that are too close to the subject. This is on any article and BLP's are held to a higher standard.
    • There is an advanced misconception floating around concerning deletion versus redirect, versus !vote to keep. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection gives an alternative to deletion and a !vote to redirect is still a !vote that the article does not belong, but might have a place somewhere else. Trying to "NOT-count" comments supporting redirect, or somehow explain that a redirect is separate so there appears to be no consensus is a fallacy.
This article is unsuitable for standalone status. There are seven editors that have !voted to delete, redirect, or a combination. There are 3 keeps !votes, including one weak-keep, and if ALL the arguments on both sides were valid there is still a 2.33 to 1 ratio that the article does not deserve standalone status and is certainly already a clear community view.
Being a #1 fan of a subject is great but does not help notability, and calling the subject, or a representative, would not help as that is not a published reference and would be a primary self-reference, and WP:OR. References: Intentional---or unintentional (in good faith) ref-bombing is superficial. Primary references do not count towards notability nor adding a local reference to a Miss baby diaper pageant. IMDb is not acceptable as a reference, and why it is used, if at all, in the external links section.
Back to the BLP issue, since BLP articles are held to a higher standard, references should be high-quality, not questionable, and the page number needs to be included. Having an "official" website does not confer notability and content like; "Her philanthropy and volunteerism extend to her church, Junior League, animal rescue, and medical/legal advocate for the ill.", is certainly OR when not referenced, and when referenced with an "official" webpage, belonging to the subject or any organization too close to the subject, is improper (not an acceptable reference and why it belongs in the "External links" section), and just WP:puffery to try to justify notability just as adding sections, with two lines of content double spaced, to make it appear there is more substance. The subject apparently won a single pageant which means it should have a place in the parent article. I argued, and lost to consensus, the keeping of an article on a "bit-part" actor because there was just not enough notability for an article even with several tiny parts in movies or commercials.
As it stands now there is "clear consensus" for delete or redirect. A redirect will preserve the history so this can be argued into possible non-existence or "saved somewhere. Otr500 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not exactly sure how you could come to that conclusion Otr500. As I read down the list of !votes during this discussion, a cursory count is delete - 2, strong delete - 1, keep - 2, week keep - 1, redirect - 2 . Although I am aware that the closing admin gives weight or non-weight to each editor's discussion points, I say it is a little to early to reach any definite conclusion other than perhaps no consensus. Perhaps more discussion is needed to be able to form a true consensus. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect and not trying to be too funny, your math might be worse than mine. There have been exactly 10 editors weighing in so you have either miscounted or chosen to discount some !votes.
You are right that an admin will weigh the contents of !votes and will do so based on policies and guidelines. A comment is not discounted because it does not directly link to any of these just if the rationale has substance based on relevance. In trying to determine notability of a WP:BIO an editor (and admin) has basic criteria to consider. This includes: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.".
If the "depth of coverage" is lacking one may consider, "then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.". This would establish a base-line for notability. We can dig deeper in trying to defend article retention by additional criteria of "Any biography", and "Entertainers". Articles on "People notable for only one event" almost always ends up with a Pseudo-biographies. This is one of my concerns and having to add possible use of IMDb, that is not an acceptable source, to try to bolster notability, and "primary sources" (...may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.), is just trying to save an article because we like it. Expanding an article, in hopes the effort will be a notice that the article is salvageable, when there is still a lack of reliable sources, just introduces WP:OR at worse and trivial and actually unsubstantiated content at best, evidenced by the self-promoted Philanthropy section and content. We can "grasp at straws" but ultimately a lack of actual notability is just that, which can't be fixed with additional edits. When this is apparent should we delete, merge, or redirect. The later ---at this time--- is evident. Otr500 (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Most mentions are trivial or do little to establish notability of the subject. SamsaK (talk) 01:26, 11 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paige_Brooks&oldid=1138199246"