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.
Subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. I was able to find several articles on her, but they were all over 10 years old and related to her having been Miss Utah 2006. Per discussion on the Miss Utah 2008 deletion page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Barclay) being Miss Utah in and of itself is not notable. The other article highlights about going to college, being a supporting actress, etc. are not notable. Jacobkhed (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wellllll...., the person meets the GNG I'm pretty sure. Here is a whole long article about her, several paragraphs, in a major paper (the Salt Lake Tribune). Here is an even longer one, and then here you have a third whole long article, about her declining to wear a bikini. Which I guess could have been a notable social statement, except that nobody much paid attention.
So, meets GNG. it partly depends on how seriously and/or rigidly you take the GNG. I don't much, but hella people do.
The latter two articles are in the Deseret News tho. The Deseret News, while reasonably widely read, considered a respectable reliable source I guess, and primarily engaged in being a regular newspaper, is a Mormon paper. It's not actually owned by the Church, but I mean it is published by and mostly read by Mormons, and they do include a Church News section that is written or anyway approved by the Church. Millar is Mormon so I suppose you could say that's log-rolling. If you squint; my guess is that the paper probably just covered her because it's a Utah paper and she's from Utah so of course they did.
That's it tho. She does have a (tiny) IMDd entry, and she was Miss Utah, but those aren't much.
I don't know why we don't have articles on Miss [State] winners considering we have articles on extinct fungi and other extremely obscure stuff. Whatever, but I wouldn't count Kayla Barclay as any kind of precedent, since there wasn't actually any kind of disccussion... Not counting the nominator (who was kind of on the fence) there was one vote, of one sentence, by a now-banned sockpuppet. That nom should probably have been closed as No Consensus, and it looks like the closer took 15 seconds considering the matter, which i get that we're way understaffed, but this isn't a good way to set precedents I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:BASIC notability critieria begins, People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]. I have reviewed Miss Utah devoted to God, diabetes research (Salt Lake Tribune, 2006), Miss Utah hopes to be example of traditional values (Daily Herald, 2007), Miss Utah not afraid to be herself (Deseret News, 2007), and Standing her ground on the national stage (Associated Press, 2008), which are all in-depth coverage focused on her that can help expand the article. Per WP:RSP, Deseret Newsis considered generally reliable for local news. [...] The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed. Also, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage, and WP:GNG appears supported by the coverage noted above. Per the beauty pageant participants SNG, there is discussion of the types of pageant wins generally presumed notable, but it also states Subjects that do not meet the pageant-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline. Notability is not a subjective assessment of importance. Beccaynr (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’delete”’’ Geeze this is old news and Information. Needs to be archived or something. Exactly the same as the other article on Kayla Barclay. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants). Was not a national title holder, but only a state title holder. All of the coverage of the subject is local (with the exception of a trivial AP article over a clothing choice) and occurred only during her reign as Miss Utah. In order to prove notability under that SNG, we need to see coverage outside of Utah and WP:SUSTAINED coverage extending beyond her reign as Miss Utah. Likewise, fails GNG because the subject lack SUSTAINED significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Trivial coverage" is discussed in WP:BASIC, footnote 7, e.g. Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. The 2008 AP coverage is in-depth and focused on her, including biographical information. It does not appear to objectively fit the definition of "trivial" as described in the guideline. As to WP:SUSTAINED, this guideline points to WP:BLP1E, which discourages articles on people if they meet all three of the listed factors, but she does not appear to have been covered in the context of a single event, because the coverage includes her Miss Utah win (e.g. the non-local, 2006 state-level coverage from the Salt Lake Tribune, which also includes in-depth biographical information), and her noteworthy participation in the Miss America pageant, which received non-trivial national news coverage from the AP and in-depth 2007 state-level coverage from Deseret News. Her role in these events also appear to be well-documented, and she does not appear to have been WP:LOWPROFILE, so WP:BLP1E does not appear to apply. The article needs revision to reflect information from the sources, but WP:DINC. Beccaynr (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr, WP:SUSTAINED is part of WP:N (i.e. GNG) not BLP1E. The see also tag is placed there because BLP1E is a related application of SUSTAINED, not the only relevant application of SUSTAINED. I'm not arguing BLPE; merely a lack of significant SUSTAINED coverage from media that has independent discriminate coverage. Any source within Utah is indiscriminate because of its geographical audience. We need discriminate coverage to prove notability. As for trivial, I wasn't referring to the policy of trivial coverage (I didn't link the policy on purpose) but that the content itself is trivial (as in vapid and WP:TABLOID). Just because it's in the news and verifiable doesn't mean its meaningful and encyclopedic. I don't think beauty pageant winners at the state level are encyclopedia worthy as a topic area in the vast majority of cases; something that the relevant SNG explicitly makes clear.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed to meet the notability guidelines.---Richie Campbell (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:SUSTAINED has more than a "See Also" link to WP:BLP1E, because it also discusses people, after organizations and events, with a link to WP:BLP1E within its discussion, so my interpretation is related to how WP:GNG is a broader standard that applies all topics, and how the notability of people has its own criteria. WP:BLP1E does not appear to apply because there is coverage of Millar's Miss Utah win in 2006, with in-depth biographical context, as well as in-depth coverage of her participation in the Miss America pageant, including from the Associated Press. With regard to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, there appears to be nothing in this policy that supports deletion due to the geographical location of sources, and the emphasis on context in this policy seems to bolster how the depth of information available can provide the necessary context. With regard to WP:TABLOID, which redirected me to WP:NOTNEWS, there is also an emphasis on how events must be put into encyclopedic context. Within the same section of the policy, there is also WP:NOTGOSSIP, e.g. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person, but in this instance, I think an objective assessment indicates she received national news coverage as a role model. Beccaynr (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccanyr I think you have lost perspective. We have a clothing controversy in the AP article basically highlighting her decision to not wear a bikini but a one piece bathing suit for religious reasons happening at the time of Miss America Pageant. It's a human interest piece, but in the broader scheme of things not all that notable. If it were notable we would see sustained coverage after the event and in some sort of commentary. The issue here is we aren't seeing SUSTAINED coverage beyond the typical pageant news cycle; and this particular human interest story is part of the WP:ROUTINE news kinds of stories surrounding pageant coverage. I don't think choosing to wear a one piece bathing suit in a pageant makes a person encyclopedia worthy or demonstrates in-depth coverage. If this is the depth of what a person has done they don't belong in an encyclopedia, but a pageant trivia fan website. Likewise, state pageant winners aren't considered encyclopedic per the SNG which makes it clear that only national title winners are considered notable. 4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2021 (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.