- 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. Sandstein 18:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Miss Alabama Teen USA (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'm nominating this and all the related state articles. It's overcoverage of a minor derivative pageant. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- etc. etc.
- Redirect ALL state level pages to the Miss Teen USA page which covers a minor version of the Miss USA contest that less and less people care about or fewer and fewer media cover anymore. Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all to Miss Teen USA as per WP:ATD-R. I added the Find sources templates to the nomination above (diff), and many of these have received coverage in news sources, but much of the coverage is local and regional in nature. Redirecting with a potential for selective merging is functional as per WP:ATD-M as well. North America1000 06:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all have received significant coverage and this nomination is a sneaky attempt to hide the fact that many have passed AFD in the last couple of years. I suggest the nominator split these nominations and do it properly. Not liking pageants isn't a reason to be lazy. [1] [2]. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, WP:IDONTLIKEIT clearly comes out when discussing pageant-related deletions. Clearly no effort has been made to research any of these pageants - a quick check of Newspapers.com shows plenty of references to the various state pageants in reliable sources. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If "IDONTLIKEIT" is used to discount considered votes by editors who have researched and voted on numerous pageant pages for years, WP:ILIKEIT should discount the opinions of an editor that looks like a WP:SPA for the topic. Dealing with all 51 preliminary round pages is the best most efficient fairest way to deal with this. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that I'm able to be fair and have often voted to prod, delete or redirect articles which aren't up to notability standards - sometimes even against the final outcome (PS if this gets kept, it's laughable that you guys are voting to delete these articles). I'm also one of the strongest advocates for reworking and referencing articles to improve quality and do what I can to report disruptive accounts whereever possible. Almost never do I see the IDONTLIKE it squad like yourself treating articles on their merits. I agree there are a lot of users interested in this topic who provide little of value or who don't understand the policies or guidelines but please don't lump us all together. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't lump other editors together :) I consume tons of news online, in print, radio and TV and it's been at least 10 years since I've seen a pageant mentioned (excluding searches to find ANY memtion of specific pageants while assessing articles. Closest to home, Miss Canada was cancelled in 1993 and the only way I found out it was restarted in 2008 was because I found it on Wikipedia. Pageants are really a nothingburger in Canada now and going downhill in popularity in the States quickly. In the US pageants just are not news, except for routine "local girl gets an award" posts and slim press release reprints, when the promotors manage to send stuff out on a slow news day. I get following these events is a hobby for some people, but that does not make preliminary rounds independantly notable. Legacypac (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be ignoring the fact that just because you haven't seen them in the press that actually counts for stuff all. These pageants have received a significant amount of press since 1983 (because of course we shouldn't just be talking about current levels of notability but the fact that they each pageant & their winners have received coverage extending over three decades) and you're arguement is IDONTLIKEIT in a nutshell. I can't be bothered continuing to argue with you though because there's no chance of changing your mind and actually getting you to consider WP:GNG. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although the individual state-level pageants are not independently notable, this seems to me to be a textbook application of WP:SPINOUT, removing detail on subtopics into separate articles. TJRC (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all -- "overcoverage of a minor derivative pageant" sums it up well. Not notable on their own. Notability requirements apply to WP:SPINOUT articles; if they are non-notable, then it becomes the case of indiscriminate collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am not sure what value a redirect would provide, but that is also an option.--Rpclod (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So what is your rationale for deletion?BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No significant reliable sources. Also, this is just one stage of the Miss Teen competition and has no independent notability outside of that context, if it had any notability at all.--Rpclod (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep some of these entries have quite a number of online sources talking about them, I don't think that these should all be handled by a single nomination. Also look at the prior Keep comments explaining why several of these are notable. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 10:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources but the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and the state organizations should not have pages per WP:BRANCH Legacypac (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - per notable state pageants for selection for top pageant Miss Teen USA. A textbook application of WP:SPINOUT.BabbaQ (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Question (maybe for Closer): @DGG: You said "I'm nominating this and all the related state articles." But only 8 are listed with "etc. etc." on the end. Not only that, but only those 8 appear to have deletion discussion tags on the articles themselves. Surely we don't delete 40+ other articles without tagging them so that watchers know the article is up deletion, right? --Closeapple (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If this closes as delete, I will prod the others. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would also argue that WP:NEXIST is relevant towards keeping this article and the rest.BabbaQ (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You are misinterpreting the WP:NEXIST discussion. The discussion is not an argument for keeping an article. Wikipedia still requires that reliable sources exist to support notability. In this case, there is no reason why the article does not provide adequate references if such existed.--Rpclod (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to Miss Teen USA. These have no independent notability from the parent pageant. They are state level feeder pageants that can be addressed in the main article if there is something particularly noteworthy about a particular one. Guidance can be drawn from WP:BRANCH which states in part "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area."(emp. added). The reasoning behind WP:CHAIN also has some applicability - "there is generally very little to say about individual ... franchises that is not true for the chain in general". Jbh Talk 21:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, each of the articles covers extensively the state pageants history and winners. Per your rationale about sources WP:NEXIST says different.BabbaQ (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @BabbaQ: Possibly I am missing something obvious but I do not see how NEXIST bears on my arguements. BRANCH and CHAIN are not really arguements about lack of sources. They are about the kind of sources and the scope/reach of coverage and the applicability of spinning out articles on essentially identical topics that differ only by region. Also, the winners of state pageants are only significant in that they become contestants in the national one. Could you please expain a bit more and help me understand? Jbh Talk 16:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing that is the same is the pagaent fans using personal insults and attacks against nominators. Another similarity is the unjustified claims that these are notable inspite of the lack of evidence. One thing that changed is a keep voter that pushed the Rhode Island page over the edge has been topic banned from all deletion discussion. This nom is also differennt because it covers a whole class of pages at once - where individual page noms are met with arguments that other similar pages exist. Another change is I've personally never seen WP:BRANCH and WP:CHAIN discussed as applicable for these business listings. I'd also say that they fail WP:NCORP and that we speedy delete pages on much more notable businesses all the time as the standards for which businesses get pages continue to push higher in response to the unrelenting spam. Further, since each of these pages represents a business, some coverage about the ownership, history, relationship to the parent/franchise holder etc would be in order and if not available, is an excellent sign the business is not notable because no one is discussing the business in very much depth. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NEXIST tells differently. You put a lot of reasoning for deletion on sources or the need for additional sources. But as a part of Miss Teen USA a notable pageant the state winners and state pageants are notable. WP:NEXIST does cover it.BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No per WP:BRANCH McDonalds is notable but McDonalds Montana does not get a page. These are just franchises and branches of the parent business. Further to take this line of thought to it's logical conclusion Miss Springfield the feeder event to the feeder event is also notable because the notable event is notable. Sorry but the logic does not work. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. For one thing, two of the pageants in the system (Ohio and Rhode Island) survived their deletion nominations (both as "keep") only about two years ago. For another, having a list of winners serves an encyclopedic purpose, but trying to merge all 51 lists into the parent article is not a practical approach. Having separate by-state articles is an appropriate approach under WP:SPINOUT. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue I see with that is that the winners are not notable therefore, per WP:NLIST, there is no reason to have a list of the winners in the first place. In other words a list of non-notable people with a WP:LISTCRITERIA of having won/participated in a non-notable event, run by a non-notable franchise of a notable organization is not notable. It is not possible to bootstrap a non-notable event by making it a home for a list of non-notable people. Jbh Talk 18:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jbhunley: Thanks for commenting. I suppose we could play a game of "dueling guidelines", with me noting that WP:CSC does not require notability for each entry in a list so long as it is intended to be a complete listing of the eligible people. I also note that the existence of the list would not be an issue if all 51 lists were merged into Miss Teen USA, except that the resulting article would be impracticably large and then WP:SPINOUT would be a good reason for having the separate articles. But perhaps the discussion can be expedited by asking whether the real question is whether Wikipedia has any place at all for these lists of winners. And for those who think not, I see two problems that need to be addressed.
First, a similar set of articles already exists for the Miss America version of teen pageants -- Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants. This article has survived two deletion nominations, both as "keep". And so, are we then to conclude that a list of state winners is acceptable, but only if the pageants are associated with Miss America and not if they are associated with Miss USA? That strikes me as an untenable argument. The second problem is broader -- the community is quite accepting of lists of winners of structured competitions, even if those competitions are not at the highest level of their fields and even if the competitions are not at the national level. As just two examples, takes a look at Intermediate League World Series (Central Region) and U18 Ontario Curling Championships. Sure, these are lists of teams and not individuals, but the underlying principle is clear -- a list of winners is seen by the community as having encyclopedic value. And what will be the counter-argument? Will it be that a list of winners is encyclopedic, but only if it is young men playing baseball or curling, and not if it is young women competing at pageants? If that is indeed the counter-argument, I'll be very interested in learning what objective criteria causes it to be true.
What we really need is a centralised discussion on the question of winner lists. Some set of criteria that can be applied to any system of structured competition, whether it be sports, pageants, the arts or academic. Until then, we have community consensus that winner lists are fine, even for teenagers and even at the sub-national level. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all there is nothing indepdently notable about these competitions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How?BabbaQ (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The context is fully provided in an article on the main competition. The localized versions are just iterations of the theme. Localized versions add no additional encyclopedic value. Any differences are minimal and can be discussed in the main article.--Rpclod (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- the two "Keep" examples are from 2015 & consensus can change. There's no codified consensus that the state-level teen pageants should be considered notable; the coverage is routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As the state pageants are notable in their own right, even if the individual winners may not be. Also, even in absence of that, these should pass a test to survive as stand-alone lists per WP:STANDALONE and the guidance as WP:LISTPEOPLE explicitly addresses the concern about the listed persons not being notable, stating If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met After Midnight 0001 21:11, 15 February 2018 (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.