Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Notability (beauty pageant participants)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: witdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got bored talking about this. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Notability (beauty pageant participants)[edit]

Bizarre attempt to evade WP:GNG. The "nutshell" says: "A participant in a beauty pageant is presumed to be notable if the person has been declared the winner of a major international- or national-level beauty pageant competition and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (emphasis mine)

But WP:GNG says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

If you win a beauty pageant competition or not is completely irrelevant; we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

The words "presumed" & "and so is likely to have received" seem to be a bizarre attempt to evade this requirement (which has widespread support among Wikipedians. Reliable sources that are independent of the subject do not cover beauty pageants because they are not notable. When in doubt, follow the sources.

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If nominator does not like the contents of this draft (as in fact I do not, particularly), they should join the community discussion to reach consensus on its substance, rather than cutting off others' participation by trying to have the draft deleted. Please note also, there was an RfC closed with community consensus to start working on this draft--which would then require separate consensus to put the draft into force as a guideline. That process is on-going; there's no legitimate grounds for deleting this community discussion. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have joined the discussion. The intention behind the draft seems to be to be able to ignore others' opinions, and overrule the consensus by a minority. Please note also that that RfC did not show community consensus to overrule a widely supported guideline. No one is arguing that the community discussion should be deleted, that is a straw man argument, TBH I think that userfication is probably better than deleting it. Unfortunately MfD is called Miscellany for Deletion, not Discussion, but that is not my fault. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to [1]: Ignoring the consensus and circumventing others' opinions is exactly what the nutshell proposes. It seems weird to worry about the handful of people who would've wanted to !vote in the RfC while ignoring the huge group of wikipedians that supports the guideline. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Godsy: Improving the proposal would (imho) mean making it congruent with WP:GNG, which means that there is no reason for its existence. The closure of that discussion by S Marshall was probably a bad idea at that stage. It may reflect the consensus among the couple of people who contributed to that section, but definitely not the consensus of the Wikipedia community as a whole. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't MFD draft essays because you don't like what they're saying, Quixotic Potato -- that's not collegial behaviour. Essays are allowed to exist, particularly in draft space. The place to make these arguments is in the RfC to promote the essay to a guideline (and if that was tried using the current wording, then I would say that it's much, much too inclusionist and needs drastically rethinking from start to finish). What you need to do is let other editors develop it and then express a view about the finished version. I hope you'll withdraw. However, I've summarily overturned the NAC, which deletion review would never allow to stand.—S Marshall T/C 19:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, why would that not be collegial behaviour? It saves everyone wasting their time. Anyway, I'm bored of this, so withdrawing seem to be a good option. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:23, 30 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.