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 Oregon#Winners. no argument has been put forward that this overcomes BLP1E Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Fleck[edit]

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

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon where the information is best presented in context as part of list. The proposed redirect does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. She is a law clerk now according to the article, which is not likely to lead to notability. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is a threshold, not a competition, and a career after crossing that threshold does not diminish in any way that notability. . - Dravecky (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to any pageant topic article you have ever supported deleting? Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant to this article and weirdly personal, bordering on a personal attack, but yes I have !voted delete on pageant-related articles that did not cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. Without spending a lot of time diving into my own edit history, I find Esha Tewari Pande and Divaa Victoria near the top. Most of the AfDs on this subject, however, close as "keep" because the subjects cross the verifiability and notability thresholds and it's therefore unsurprising that I'm usually opposed to deletion of these articles. - Dravecky (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant to a bunch of discussions. The two you point to are both not winners, but I appreciate you may not serial keep. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is where you reveal which pageant-related topic articles you have supported as keep, for balance. - Dravecky (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've never seen a pageant article nominated for deletion that I thought should be kept, but I've evaluated and edited/cleaned up dozens of pageant articles without trying to delete them. I don't AfD anyone I find that has a reasonable claim to notability beyond winning a state level contest (Miss America, notable film work, reality TV, substantial modeling, business etc). You can check my logs. I do believe presenting a state winner on a list is more appropriate and Miss America agrees with me. [1] Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, the Miss America Organization maintains individual pages (like this one) for each of the state winners as well as a list, just as Wikipedia has a list of all of the Miss Oregon winners and articles for individual winners. - Dravecky (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look carefully at the sources and claims here. This article follows the formula and style of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nichole_Mead where analysis of the abusive over sourcing includes links to Miss America state pages to prove she DID NOT compete.Well the same source can be used to prove I did not compete either. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP demands that claims in an article be reliably sourced. Proving a negative is often difficult but the cited source makes this possible even if, yes, the negative can be broadly applied. You, as the Time Person of the Year for 2006, may experience this in other areas, too. - Dravecky (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first section "Early pageants" is well sourced to prove she never won a non-notable local event. So that should be removed. Half the second section is about the girl who won after her. The third section "Vying for Miss America" details she was eliminated early and did not win, so should not be there. The last section names her parents and sibling (a BLP violation as they are not notable and have nothing to do with her claim to notability) and other trivia. After you cut this out there is little left. (before trimming before trimming Legacypac (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gutting the article of content and sourcing during this discussion borders on bad faith. - Dravecky (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring trivia and committing WP:NPF and WP:DOB on her and her family as you just did is not so good either. Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly gutting the contents of the article, including the properly sourced standard biographical information, during this discussion is clearly editing in bad faith. Your edits went far beyond removing a few names or a date. - Dravecky (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are encouraged to improve articles at AfD. You reintroduced uncited information and removed appropriate tags. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Names of brothers, parents occupations etc are completely irrelevant to her (questionable) notability. Including exact date of birth is discouraged for privacy reasons. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it should be. It highlights the lack of notability that not much can really be said about the person so it is bumped up with filler, which is completely unnecessary and a BLP issue. Polequant (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exact DOB is discouraged for minors. If it can be cited with a reliable source otherwise it is not discouraged; Wikipedia is not censored (and it coming from an existing reliable source makes privacy concerns utterly moot). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

That isn't what WP:DOB and WP:NPF say. WP:NOTCENSORED is completely irrelevant - a date of birth is not objectionable or controversial, which is what that guideline is addressing. Neither is wikipedia a mere data aggregator, it is edited, with editorial decisions to be made. Just because something is listed in a RS doesn't mean we have to include it. Given how many mirrors of wikipedia there are and how wikipedia articles tend to get to the top of search rankings, it is a valid concern. If a person wanted to try and limit this information at a future point it makes it incredibly difficult (which is why WP:NPF is relevant). And you know what, just looking at the article now, the date of birth isn't sourced. It can be worked out because some of the newspaper reports talk about it being her birthday on a certain day of the week, but they do not give her date of birth like wikipedia is doing here. Polequant (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain, in the context of NTEMP why? Legacypac (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. She was notable, therefore she still is notable. However, see below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Oregon#Winners as suggested by the nom. This is a slightly different case than the other pageant winners; for most purposes, there would be more than enough coverage here to pass WP:GNG, and as notability is not temporary, that would be that. However, as a living person, WP:BLP1E comes into play, and both criteria 1 and 2 are clearly applicable here. The question is whether or not criteria 3 - the importance of the event - applies. If this was a national pageant it would be unquestionably inapplicable and, thus, it would default to GNG/NTEMP. But as she was the winner of a state pageant I believe that it does, and as all the available sources of any significance and reliability are for that one event, BLP1E applies. Therefore redirection is appropriate to the list of winners, as her name is both likely to be searched for in that context, it avoids somebody going "oh, a redlink!" and recreating the page, and, as always, redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete state pageant winners who have done nothing else of note who lack true indepth reporting on them are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Oregon#Winners as WP:BLP1E. There is no evidence to the contrary. No reason for a separate article, such detailed coverage of her pagents notwithstanding. --Bejnar (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2015 (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.