Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaletta Porterfield

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 redirect to Miss Wisconsin USA. MBisanz ^talk 19:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaletta Porterfield[edit]

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

Porterfield was for a short time Miss Wisconsin USA, this alone is not enough to make someone notable. Her resignation after being charged with identity theft is not really enough to justify a stand alone article, the mention in the Miss Wisconsin USA page is sufficient. The fact that we do not even know if she plead guilt, was convicted or was aquitted of charges that are about 5 years old shows that this was not a significant event and not worth having a Wikipedia article that gives in depth details on. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think she is notable enough. Dolotta (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Wisconsin USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 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) 17:00, 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 00:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The rare pageant AfD where I come to this decision; didn't get to the national pageant due to her resignation, and the rest of the article struggles with mention of her Ford modeling contract and literal WP:WHOCARES info about who runs Miss Wisconsin USA. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close comment - I originally closed as Redirect however someone disagreed so am relisting, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Wisconsin USA This is a valid search term and subject is mentioned on the page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E; the subject is not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deleted the 5th source because it was an ad to get people to hire someone named Holly as their beauty pageant coach. It was not even used to source anything on Porterfield. Of the sources left, one is literally a list of Miss Wisconsin USA winners, one is an article on Porterfield published by Miss Wisconsin when she won, and two are no longer functional links so I can not say too much on them. However it appears that both only mention Porterfield in passing. This is not the level of sourcing we would want to create an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 3 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.