- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Becki Ronen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong venue or Procedural close Delete !votes have failed to establish the case (1) that a search for sources including sources in the article finds less significant coverage than an objective level that defines WP:GNG, (2) that there are no merge targets, and (3) that there are no redirect targets. WP:Notability is not a policy, rather WP:Deletion policy; including ATD, DEL-REASON, and CONTENT; is the policy. Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as, in this case, there's no signs of the substance we need, simply participating in an event is not an automatic factor of notability and the sources are only mere announcements and mentions for them; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone involved and the article shows no other signs of the needed significance. WP:NEXIST is not applicable here, because it's used when sources were otherwise shown and found, but none have been, and since the current ones are unconvincing, there's nothing else otherwise; next, WP:NTEMP is not applicable since it's used when subjects were in fact convincing, but this one isn't since it's simply mere participation. In fact, there's been no noted career achievements since then, so that's also self-explanatory. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Wikipedia in no way denigrates local sources as non-reliable. Reliable is the key, not wide-encompassing. The Wichita Eagle and The Topeka Capital-Journal both have Wikipedia articles, as you can see. NPR affiliates are obvious. Tapered (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Decisive Keep There are several dedicated references from WP:RS, especially The Wichita Eagle, The Topeka Capital-Journal, and NPR affiliates. Whether her notability derives in part from a Beauty contest or not, dedicated pieces from reliable sources = notability = keep. Tapered (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dear Admins Please sift through this discussion carefully. Please note that the nomination is encompassed by one word, with no attempt to synch it with Wikipedia guidelines. It doesn't get much better after that. None of the Deleters explain how their nominal citings of Wikipedia policy dovetail with the contents of the article. The use them like talismans: 'I mention this in connection with this article, so that means what I'm saying is so.' Other Deleters, in effect, say, 'I don't like this article, out with it.' There's a cultural condescension toward Beauty contests and their entrants at work here. Please don't take this as even a tacit endorsement of said contests. It's simply a plea for intellectual honesty in the matter of this article and Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which I see as absent in much of the above verbiage. Tapered (talk) 05:11, 5 March 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.