Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Medley

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 and redirect to Miss South Carolina USA. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Medley[edit]

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

Medley's only coverage ever is winning a state teen beauty pageant and a state beauty pageant. Recent discussions have made it clear that neither of these alone are enough to make someone notable. Her dabbling in modeling comes no where close to making her even marginally notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of mixed views on this one. IF the claim of being the youngest contestant at 14 can be verified, that's interesting, and if the runway modeling was national or international, it's a maybe. Normally I'd lean delete, but I wonder if it's worth a bit of digging first. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 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 02:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss South Carolina USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 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) 03:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps didn't come up with much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E; the subject is not notable. If a redirect chosen by the close, suggest deleting first and then redirecting as it's unlikely the subject would be notable in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, South Carolina is larger than Belgium and more populous than Ireland (or New Zealand, Turkmenistan, Croatia, etc.). If Miss Ireland or Miss Belgium would rate an article (not sure about that), maybe Miss South Carolina ought to also. On the other hand, is there even a mention of any of this in the Charleston paper? Not that I can find. With no proper refs, it's not looking good for this article. Herostratus (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was she was crowned in 2004 and competed at Miss USA in 2005. Most newspaper archives barely give you stuff from five years ago. I've looked at Newspapers.com and can't find anything but that also isn't a slam dunk because finding stuff from there is very much dependent on what papers are available on it. PageantUpdater (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However the newspaper studies we have done have shown these people covered in general only in their very small home town paper. Beyond this, Wikipedia is not news, so not everyone who gets coverage in the paper merits an article. Newspapers will have much more substantial and sustained coverage on candidates for the United States congress, but candidates who are not elected are only notable if they are notable on some other grounds. This even applies to those who won their party primaries, in some cases they could win their primary parties with more votes than candidates in other elections get at all. Also, all members of state legislatures are presumed notable, yet in most states they will be elected with lots few votes than would be earned by a major party nominee in a competitive district. Yet, as I said, news paper coverage alone is more substantial for nominees for US congress than for Miss Virginia USA winners (or any other state).John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general it seems the main papers in states do not take note of who wins the state Miss USA title. However, guidelines of academics make it clear there are some types of titles on a national level that make someone notable that would not on a sub-national level. We do not general try and determine which nations and are are not worthy. Although if we go striaght GNG than it just means we have to get significant enough coverage. Put another way, just because someone is declared the winner of a beauty pageant in some country does not mean people there care. If the number of people who read of, watch or attend the national beauty pageant in Belgium were to exceed the number so involved in Brazil, than it would seem that the winner is more notable even though Brazil has way more people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are zillions of things most people don't care about but still pass GNG. p b p 03:42, 1 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.