- 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Diana Sweeney (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)
As I said in the last nomination, Sweeney is only ever given attention for being Miss Nevada, and this only at the time she won the award. This is a classic example of BLP1E. The previous discussion was closed as no consensus even though all participants in it had to that point favored deletion. Since then there has been opened on the Wikiproject page for beauty pageants a discussion that makes it clear that there is a consensus that sub-national beauty pageant winners are not default notable for such. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What the nom clearly chooses to ignore is this subject and most of the pageant winners who were nominated in bulk, participate in multiple events. In Diana Sweeney's case, sourced, she was Miss Carson City, Miss Nevada, had a title reign as Miss Nevada and competed for Miss America. All are a sequential series of separate events over (including the reign of two titles) more than a year's period of time. All of this is a logical pattern of events which JPL could have discovered WP:BEFORE making the nominations. Trackinfo (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as merely participating is not at all a convincing sign of Notability and we've specified that in Notabilityor itinerary, we've closed enough AfDs here as it is with Delete as the basis of not notable apart these events. There's quite simple signs here since there's no actual substance. There's actually no BEFORE needed since the article lists everything trivial as it is. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The clear consensus is that we need something higher than a state level win or something not at all related to beauty pageants, or coverage outside of the local press, to establish notability for these people. None of this is presented by Trackinfo. What he argues is not a set of sperate events, but one long interconnected set of things that boil down to one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This polar plunge is there to combat the nom's use of BLP1E. These contestants have multiple occasions of coverage, additive toward WP:GNG and establishing the timeline of multiple events. Trackinfo (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider this trivia not suitable for inclusion; hence I voted "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Winning a state beauty pageant does not confer notability by itself. If, for example, the contestant levitated herself during the talent competition and ended up on Good Morning America, that would be notable. Rogermx (talk) 21:20, 4 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.