- 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 California. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 03:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Kristy Cavinder (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)
I previously nominated this for Prod delete, since the clear consensus is that winners of sub-national beauty pageants are not notable for such, and anyway all the souces are from the local paper, the Orange County Register, or from Miss America itself. It was deprodded arguing the sources show notability, which they clear do not considering they are all local write ups from Orange County, and then arguing since California is not a small place we should make an exception. In the long drawn out discussion for several months on the issue, no one argued we should make winners of certain state pageants deafault notable and others not. That is a horrible plan, and here is shown why. My search for no sources showed an occasional hit from a college paper, and the Orange County register links. If this was really somewho a notable honor to California, we would be getting hits for major write ups in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times. We are not. This is just a preparatory win to enter a later pageant, and if the contestant does not win the later pageant they are not notable unless we can show more coverage for some other reason which plain does not exist here. This is a clear case of a person who is not notable. Also, the size of the state is a horrible argument. The amount of funding and prize money given to winners of such contests is a lot more in some states that are much smaller than California, and at least in some states like Utah all the press, including press that in no way covers to home town of a contestant is at least going to do some write up on the winner. There is not enough to show that Cavinder is notable, because she is not. I grow tired of all the special pleading for these articles that ignores the facts at hand. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was too generous in calling the thing a college paper article. This https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/690/from-ball-gown-to-lab-coat/ is the one "source" that the person who deprodded the article produced. It is a junk source, aka a PR release, that in no way adds to the substantial, indepdent, 3rd party coverage needed to pass GNG. Sources like this are a dime a dozen and would lead to a project even more out of control an presentist, flooded with light meaningless articles on living people who have done nothing of significance, than we already have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- yet another article on a unremarkable state-level pageant winner, where the article ornamentation (infoboxes, templates, etc) take more space than the actual article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect -- Have only been able to find routine coverage naming her as first runner-up at Miss America, no significant coverage --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support redirect as per below. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Miss America 2010. I did find some coverage about her, but apparently consensus is that winners of local pageants aren't inherently notable, even if they receive routine coverage for their win. However, given that she was a 1st runner-up at a Miss America pageant, a redirect to the article on the event she competed in probably wouldn't hurt. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Or alternatively Miss California would work --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 April 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.