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. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Prod contested with no reason given. In fact, the subject fails WP:GNG - there is one and only one source with significant coverage: the Christianity Today article. The subject also fails WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants). StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator. I'm going to adapt what I previously argued on Holidayruin's page when they questioned the notability (tagging them so that they can voice their concerns here): Being profiled in the flagship publication for American evangelicalism is certainly significant and notable. That feature alone I'd argue is enough to demonstrate notability in this case. The additional mention in The Economist, which is significant coverage, helps bolster that. The Madison Record is certainly a reliable source. That source also helps bolster the notability provided by the CT source. I agree that the pageant reporting itself would not provide notability, but those sources are being used to make verifiable claims about the subject, not support notability (although they might also bolster the notability of Boyd as supplements to the CT report).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world does the mention in The Economist constitute significant coverage? StAnselm (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually sure it does, I forgot about that sentence when I posted and in retrospect I think I was wrong on that point.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you created the article in good faith, but I think you a demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:GNG when you say that the CT article is "enough to demonstrate notability in this case." Rather, we require multiple reliable sources. CT is a reliable source with significant coverage; The Economist is a reliable source but clearly not giving significant coverage. So it all comes down to whether The Madison Record article[1] is suitable as a second source. This is a very local newspaper (which doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article, although it should), and I don't think the sort of coverage it is giving Boyd is significant by WP standards. StAnselm (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I had this sentence in mind: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." The Madison Record certainly is reliable, but the question here is whether the information is significant. I'd argue that on its own, no, but given the national-level coverage in the biggest evangelical publication, it helps support notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should clarify: The Madison Record coverage is significant. That it is local news doesn't matter. But given that it's about a high-schooler, I'd want to see sources about the individual afterward, especially if they are more notable for what they've done subsequently. And that is what the CT source demonstrates. I'd argue that just the CT source alone might be enough, but with the Madison Record coverage, there is definitely enough coverage for it to be considered notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Epicgenius who reviewed this article for DYK, Maile66 who removed the notability and referencing tags from Holidayruin, Hartsseeks, who removed the prod tag, 2600:1011:b0e8:2f2c:d1d8:ddd0:17e5:6aa4, who placed the prod tag, and Magnolia677 and MB, who also edited the article significantly.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove article. Reposting my thoughts on the matter from my talk page, from July 31. I had added "Notability" and "More citations needed" templates which were swiftly reverted, and shortly afterwards the conversation on my talk page happened.

"The article is about an individual who is most notable for being a state-level beauty pageant contestant and running a Twitter account with 20k followers. She's probably a lovely individual but this does not meets the standards for WP:N. Regarding the sourcing and again per WP:N, only the Christianity Today source would be a reliable source to get information from for a notable figure. Going through the rest of the sources, one is a unnotable local-level profile on a high schooler, one is her own personal website which should not be used as a source, the The Economist article is unrelated to her and would be considered original research (WP:NOR), and the rest are simply beauty pageant results."

I think I mislabeled the Economist piece as original research, but its place in the Wikipedia article is still ill-fitting and inappropriate as giving a quote on an issue generally does not seem notable enough to befit the speaker's Wikipedia page (unless their word is widely important or the statement itself became an important issue). Holidayruin (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not every statement in an article has to be notable, but rather supported by a reliable source, per WP:NNC.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment significant coverage in Christianity Today. User:StAnselm are you prodding articles while logged out, and then nominating while logged in? would that be appropriate? --Hartsseeks (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No - why would you think I am 2600:1011:B0E8:2F2C:D1D8:DDD0:17E5:6AA4? (And why would I bother doing that?) Anyway, everyone agrees there is significant coverage in Christianity Today - but that's not enough for the article to pass WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Spiderone as well since they rated the article for the requisite WikiProjects.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove I agree with the nomination that the notability of the article stems exclusively from the one CT article and thus fails GNG. Her notability could be established down the road, but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Teemu08 (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I’m not really seeing WP:GNG being met here, I tried googling to find additional coverage but I only found the currently present and more passing mentions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:19, 5 September 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.