Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalie Smith

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) 13:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalie Smith[edit]

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

Smith was Miss Wisconsin. All the coverage is either extremely excessively local, or if not 100% local from within Wisconsin and related to this one fact. No coverage moves beyond Wisconsin itself at a level to justify having an encyclopedia article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin sources are accepted by Wikipedia. As for whether or not there is a "level" justifying coverage, is this an IAR argument? Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 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 07:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- trivia, fancruft, yada, yada. Could these articles perhaps be PRODed? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TRIVIAL and WP:ITSCRUFT, which states, "While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted...Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion." Unscintillating (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is part of Dravecky's Miss America 2016 project, where this article was completed in July 2015. Here is what Dravecky said in August 2015.
Miss America 2016
It took longer than I'd hoped but 52 articles donw (including a dozen DYKs and another half-dozen pending) all solidly referenced means the Miss America 2016 pageant field is the first complete set of contestant articles all the way from Miss Alabama 2015 Meg McGuffin to Miss Wyoming 2015 Mikaela Shaw. (Why 52? DC and Puerto Rico.) Now if only we had some photos to go with these articles.... - Dravecky (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Great work, Dravecky! Thank you! Too bad the Virgin Islands pageant folded up shop this year, ha! Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good article, 35 inline citations, no applicable WP:DEL-REASONs, and none have been cited. Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- these 35 citations do not amount to notability; this is still an article on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, citations don't necessarily determine GNG notability, as they can include primary sources. But that is not what I said. 35 citations indicates quality of workmanship and attention to WP:V.
As for your words, "unremarkable subject", WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". Whether or not the sources should have remarked on the topic, they have done so. Unscintillating (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with WP:NOT as we're not a model listing and the article is based only from her mere participation in these events, not that there was otherwise significance in or apart from them, hence not substantial, and the information shows the career is still only based in this, thus too soon. As always, there's been consensus this would be best suited as part of a list, instead of separately. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While allowed by WP:N, why would a topic with a decent standalone article be better as part of a list? Unscintillating (talk) 19:35, 16 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.