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 no consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Wiser[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous keep was largely happened because A-some people assumed state beauty pageant winners were default notable, and B-some people focused too much on the argument that beauty pageant contestants should be judged on the notability guidelines for models. However beauty pageant winners at the state level are not default notable. Winning both Miss Montana and Miss Montana USA does not change the fact that neither of them are notable, and that the coverage is just not of a level to establish Wiser as notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Montana USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. A second choice would be to redirect to Miss Montana, where the subject is also mentioned. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge usable content to Miss Montana USA, where there is already a nice empty spot in the list waiting for her. There's obviously good local coverage of her, but nothing to show she has garnered any national recognition. I am torn on if it should merge to Miss Montana, which she won first, even though her bio content should be moved into the lists of both pages. Yvarta (talk) 03:18, 16 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) 05:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Incorporate her name in the winners list of the articles for the titles themselves. Engleham (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both because of ongoing discussion on notability guidelines, but also because having won two pageants that qualify for separate major national pageants meets "multiple independent" coverage -- even if mostly in-state, this is notable. Also tough to redirect into two different spots. Most pageant winners aren't a pass if all they do is win pageants, but this one is due to the prestige of the higher level pageants; it's unusual. Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Montanabw PageantUpdater (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the coverage I see is all local (Billings Gazette, Montana State Uni paper). It's unlikely that even two separate state level wins would allow this subject to meet GNG. Existing mentions in Miss Montana and Miss Montana USA are sufficient. (In case the closer chooses the redirect option, Miss Montana USA is preferred as the most recent).

Separately: the discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place: here, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; and (2) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There is no indication that state-level winners would be presumed notable for the win alone. Thus "keep for now" is not a valid argument in this discussion. The subject shoud be evaluated on meeting GNG or not; I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to vote "keep". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Not much source-wise, won pageants, yes, smart lady, yes. Article might work if there was another angle. My numerous sweeps didn't find much other than the Billings Gazette etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now We are clearly doing quite a lot of pageant AfDs right now, and for most of the subjects I have seen, I have agreed with K.e.coffman that nothing in the RfC discussion suggested a change that would make the subjects (subnational pageant winners) more wiki-notable, only possibly less so. But in this case I'm not so sure. The discussion really hasn't yet addressed the question of winning multiple separate subnational pageants. I think it's worth leaving for now, I don't doubt it will be revisited if the RFC outcome does not deem her notable. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Any pageant SNG (if created) would not trump GNG. I still don't see how the subject has met GNG by "receiving significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article says very little about the subject, and the sources in the article are not close enough to develop a reliable, balanced biography of a living person. So whether or not the hypothetical SNG would take into account multiple sub-national competitions, the articles would still be measured against GNG as the ultimate arbiter. So my suggestions is that we should continue with this AfD on the GNG basis, which we have been doing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that it's a settled matter of consensus either that this SNG will not trump GNG, or that an SNG can never trump GNG--and for what it's worth, I mainly draw that impression from the number of people I've seen object when an SNG is held to overrule GNG. It's not that I don't understand the objection, but I don't think it's settled. That additional question is another reason, in my mind, to wait and see what the consensus is at the SNG RfC. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here's WP:SOLDIER that I'm most familiar with, since my foray into AfD started there: In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour, or Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; etc. As can be seen, the criteria part of it is a "helper" to understand under what circumstances sufficient coverage is likely to be available. I.e. if any or several criteria are met, it does not mean that the subject is guaranteed an article. I assume the pageant SNG would be framed along the same lines... (However, WP:SOLDIER is an essay; so perhaps the pageant SNG should be an essay as well?) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] Ah ok I see where you're coming from. Yeah, so some of them have a very different relationships to GNG (for instance the language at WP:ACADEMIC--a guideline--says: This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.[1] It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.) And others are sort of muddy about how they relate to GNG (like WP:ARTIST, another guideline), which is the source of much contention--here's one discussion where I learned quite a lot about a variety of perspectives on this, should you wish to go down this rabbit hole! To be frank I've become rather muddied myself about which I think ought to be how the SNGs related to GNG, but, at minimum I don't think it's certain a SOLDIER-like formulation will be the result (even if it's possible I might wind up arguing it should be!) Innisfree987 (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here's WP:SOLDIER that I'm most familiar with, since my foray into AfD started there:

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour, or
Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; etc.

As can be seen, the criteria part of it is a "helper" to understand under what circumstances sufficient coverage is likely to be available. I.e. if any or several criteria are met, it does not mean that the subject is guaranteed an article. I assume the pageant SNG would be framed along the same lines... (However, WP:SOLDIER is an essay; so perhaps the pageant SNG should be an essay as well?) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok I see where you're coming from. Yeah, so some of them have a very different relationships to GNG (for instance the language at WP:ACADEMIC--a guideline--says: This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.[1] It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.) And others are sort of muddy about how they relate to GNG (like WP:ARTIST, another guideline), which is the source of much contention--here's one discussion where I learned quite a lot about a variety of perspectives on this, should you wish to go down this rabbit hole! To be frank I've become rather muddied myself about which I think ought to be how the SNGs related to GNG, but, at minimum I don't think it's certain a SOLDIER-like formulation will be the result (even if it's possible I might wind up arguing it should be!) Innisfree987 (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Essay_vs_SNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Nordic Nightfury 08:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 08:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "keep for now" due to the volume of AfDs or on-going discussion. The SNG discussion appears to have stalled, and should not have an impact on this AfD. At this time, there are 17 Pageant-related AfDs open which is manageable per category. I also believe that each current AfD should be evaluated on its own merits. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 12 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.