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 keep. Article's subject is now found to be notable after being updated. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [1] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation if the user's ban.[2]Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only renommed the first 8 off this list [3] - if 8 is too many, what is the limit please? Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IMHO we don't need every pageant in the world on here, Dravecky's improved the article so don't really wanna see someones actions here go to waste especially when not only has sources been found but they've also been added to the article, So as well as that and the fact it now passes GNG I have to say Keep. –Davey2010Talk 03:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This updated article now has four references including two tv stations and two newspapers. With numerous reliable sources cited in the article, the subject achieves notability and passes WP:GNG. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's nice of you, editor User:WordSeventeen, to add references to the article. I just revised it a little bit. But, though there are i think 4 news stories, it is all about wp:ONEEVENT and it is wp:ROUTINE. The sentence mentioning her participating in track & field looked promising, but it's just a mention of the phrase in one of the beauty contest winner items, and is not any separate independent coverage of any track & field performance. It is guaranteed that there will be a winner of a state-wide contest; there's nothing special about a winner being declared. If/when there is a "substantialn subsequent career", as DGG suggests, could it be worth having an article in this encyclopedia, per our policies and guidelines. --doncram 22:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then please consider WP:PSEUDO and WP:1E which suggest that an article on this individual is not warranted. Note the guideline talks about padding the article with trivia like where she went to school, what she wants to do for work, parents names, hair color etc. This is because there is no inherent notability for the accomplishment. Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further I updated the article to give publication dates of all 4 sources: They are October 26, October 27, October 27, and November 6. They're all in one news cycle. I don't know Denver's NEWS9 is a week later than Denver's NEWS7 and the Denver Post and the Miss Universe tournament source, but they're all in the same news cycle, following the state pageant. --doncram 04:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after article improvements by WordSeventeen. Sourcing is sufficient to establish minor notability. BLP1E doesn't apply as that is intended to prevent non-public figures caught up in a news story from being accidentally notable, not to prevent people "known for one thing" (which is the vast majority of all notable people) from having articles. A merge to Miss Colorado USA would be my second choice since the article is pretty short. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about 1E only applying to negative events or about other people articles--if a person is only known for involvement in one negative event, or in one positive event, they should not have articles. The 4 sources rounded up for Talyah Polee are all manufactured, wp:ROUTINE articles about the wp:ONEEVENT single state-level tournament win. And, as matters in wp:BLP1E, her role in the tournament is minimal: she did not create the event, she did not cause it to have any more importance or coverage than it would have gotten with any other participant being designated winner. She showed up, did not screw up too badly, maybe she had a little more "talent" or "beauty" than the average among the participants, or maybe not (maybe it was rigged, maybe there are non-disclosed factors, who knows). Her being designated winner is not discernably different, for our purposes, than anyone else getting designated, IMO. ThaddeusB, you're entitled to your opinion, but what impresses you enough to say that sources are sufficient to establish minor notability? The fact that there are four sources (despite them all being within a few days, being just one "story" in competing local news outlets)? --doncram 04:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WP:WI1E and the linked example of an article deleted based on WP:1E. Reality is that there are many winners in every state of various pageants run by various for-profit businesses (the biggest owned by Donald Trump) every year. The vast majority of these winners have never made the news before, get a few feel good "local person wins award" stories after the win, and go back to obscurity immediately afterward.
The WP:ROUTINE stories have a predictable formula... Susie Winner is from Springfield and a student at Northern/Southern/Eastern/Western State University where she is studying nursing/teaching/journalism/basket weaving. She likes kittens and wants to save the world. She was excited to win her 1st/3rd/15th pageant. Occasionally some winners go on to be notable actresses/news anchors/porn stars etc and then qualify for an article.
Pageants are just a business, with a local focus. Can you name the current (or any) past Miss Your State or can you remember seeing anything about the current title holder? If not, they probably don't earn an article. I can think of plenty of local business people who don't get articles even though they employ lots of people, get local press coverage regularly, have built impressive businesses/buildings and done actual charity work - a heck of a lot more then 99.9% of these girls. Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For about the fifth time, ROUTINE is a section of the event notability guidelines. No matter how many attempts are made to apply event notability guidelines (demanding continuing, non-local coverage) to pageant contestants, there will still be no consensus that they have relevance on the notability of people.
I can't tell you anything about 99.9% of all Wikipedia articles - that fact has zero to do with notability. (WP:IDONTKNOWIT).
1E doesn't apply. The guideline is for people that get coverage as part of a news story (I never said anything about it be negative coverage, for the record), and don't have biographical information about them published. It is not about denying articles to people who accomplished only one thing, but did have biographical information published. If a source is reliable and biographical it is valid. The scope of the source doesn't enter into it. Beauty pageants and other contests are not "events" in the 1E sense. Saying they are is exactly equivalent as saying a previous unknown author who wins notable prize or a sports person who wins a big sporting event can't be notable for coverage derived from winning. In other words, it's a distortion of the guideline's intent. Biographical coverage confers notability regardless of motivation, while "X was involved in Y" coverage does not. And what we have here is biographical coverage spurred by a contest win, not coverage of the contest where the person is mentioned as winning. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A small handful of local articles about a local resident notable for one local competition is not sufficient to pass any of the notability guidelines. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A state-wide contest is not a "local competition" and Denver is hardly a small town - getting "local" coverage in a big city does confer notability, as Denver newspapers/news programs are not indiscriminate in what they cover (unlike some small-town papers). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bet WordSeventeen's work. Artw (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WordSeventeen's improvements to the article allow the subject to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds of WP:GNG. - Dravecky (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: In the interests of WP:HEY, I have further expanded and improved the article, adding a number of additional references to a mix of primary and third-party sources, to further push this article across the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2015 (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.