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 Colorado USA Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talyah Polee[edit]

Talyah Polee (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)

Polee is only of any interest for being Miss Nevada USA. This is not enough to make her notable, and the biogrpahy is more of a pseduo biography focusing only on one event in her life. The two previous discussions were both tainted by covering way too many other articles in the discussion. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yet again JPL shows more haste less speed or however the saying goes. Talyah was Miss Colorado USA not Miss Nevada USA which he would know if he slowed down a little. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a sign of failing to assume good faith. The first line is very confusing mentioning Miss Nevada before mentioning Miss Colorado.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: As per WP:REDACT, you have the right to correct the errors in your nomination, although it is best to do so before the AfD is closed.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator stipulates before nomination, with this diff, that the topic can be handled under our WP:Editing policy without deletion.  As per WP:BEFORE C1, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."  WP:Deletion policy explains that the talk page of the article, or possibly RfC, is the proper venue for a content argument such as this one.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The nomination disregards WP:BEFORE in saying that this topic is not a candidate for AfD, makes an argument that the topic is not notable without overcoming community consensus at AfD2 that the topic is notable, and makes no attempt to argue to WP:DEL8.  The proper closure here was Speedy Keep NPASR on 1 September 2016.  A "Wrong forum" remains a good close.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: If an article was kept kept (i.e. not closed as "no consensus"), it shouldn't be reopened so quickly. The article passes GNG then and it passes it now. Also trout-slap for not even getting the state right. pbp 03:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as above --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Strong keep see my comments below about getting the dates confused, however I remain to see what has changed here & as I said, if anything her notability has increased in the intervening year and a bit. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talyah Polee (2nd nomination)) established notability, and the nominator makes no prima facie case for what has changed since then. Note that the previous (2nd) AFD considered only one article, so the nominator's claim about it "covering way too many other articles" is false: it covered precisely one article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The way the second nomination is written makes it on first glance make it look like it is a mass nomination. I still argue we should delete the article because all the coverage is focused on her competition as Miss Colorado USA, so it is one event coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Any editor is free to renom an article as they see fit. The 2nd nom was in January 2015, so I'm not seeing the "quick renom" claimed. Additionally, notability can always be reassessed at a later date - that's part of WP:NTEMP. In this case, I think this is BLP1E, and it fails GNG and the specialty guidelines. We have here an article on a person, and yet we have no details on her other than that she won a few beauty pageants, and all her info comes from those pageant sites (an independence issue). The fact that she was a college athlete, or got a degree, is irrelevant personal "filler" info, not WP:N criteria. The NN pageants she won are exactly that - NN pageants, also set by policy, and we generally don't go below the national level. Being an "also-ran" three times also imparts nothing by way of N - precedent and policy also say that being a contestant, no matter the level, does not presume notability - one has to win. In short, the criteria here are no different than for any other similar area. When that material is discounted, there's nothing else that merits an article. MSJapan (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The lede of WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity..."  WP:GNG says nothing about "winning".  "Discounting" GNG material because you don't like the content is not policy based.  Coverage in reliable sources for being a contestant contributes to WP:GNG notability.  WP:Notability is described in the nutshell as attention given to the topic, and all evidence-based forms of such attention are relevant.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a Google search has revealed more sources not included in this article, I can edit when next at my computer. Article also fails to mention her appearance on Fox reality tv show Coupled which adds to her notability. Also, an apology may be warranted as I had it in my head the most recent AFD was Feb 2016 not 2015 - although I still fail to see how the situation has changed since then. If anything, with her appearance on the Fox show, it's increased. Talyah Polee From 'Coupled' Is The Former Miss Colorado, So She'll Be A Fierce Competitor 'Coupled' is the new, different dating show that wants to woo you Meet Talyah Polee: Could She Be First Miss Colorado to Win Miss USA Pageant Colorado woman prepares for Miss USA competition --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Add [1] which is an AP article published in Dubai, UAE, with one of nine pictures being that of Polee.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I'm with MS Japan in considering this article to be a WP:PSEUDO biography. I also view it as WP:WEBHOST type of content for Ms Polee's pageant wins. I don't see a balanced biography here, and being a contestant on a reality show does not add to notability. Appearing in the news is not a guarantee of being notable enough for a stand-alone article in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• MS Japan did not cite WP:PSEUDO.  The nomination used the word "pseduo [sic]", but does not add the Wikilink in using the word.  In the essay WP:Avoiding harm, the actual section about WP:PSEUDO is concerned about "invading privacy", and argues that where "little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a...biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event".  This is not an argument to WP:DEL8, but an argument to merge, or don't split.  And in this case, the premise that "little or no other information is available" is inconsistent with evidence from three additional state pageants, the Miss USA pageant covered on Reelz, evidence that this event and Polee obtained AP coverage in Dubai, evidence of a four-year NCAA Division I track career at UNLV, and new evidence regarding eight Reality-TV-show appearances on Fox.  None of this is coverage of a "private" individual.  At AfD#2, User:Legacypac referenced the essay WP:PSEUDO, but makes the erroneous inference that WP:PSEUDO somehow argues for WP:DEL8.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding "appearing in the news", the policy is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which has to do with events that are important enough to cover in a newspaper, but in which interest is not WP:SUSTAINED.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:WEBHOST states, "Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook or Twitter. You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia."  Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The claim that appearances on eight episodes of a Fox reality TV show "does not add to notability", is not policy based.  According to [2], the show had 1.1 million viewers.  According to The Hollywood Reporter, regarding the selection of Polee, Mark Burnett states, "I wanted to find women who are successful in their own lives."  Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Colorado USA, No evidence of notability to warrant an article, Fails PAGENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)`[reply]
• Comment There is an RFC with potential implications for this article here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#RFC_on_creation_of_consensus_standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Colorado USA as the subject does not warrant a standalone article. Furthermore, since the last AFD was a year-and-a-half ago, claims of a quick re-nom are absolutely unfounded and should be retracted in the interest of fairness. Lepricavark (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While there appears to be no dispute that the quick re-nom argument was one year in error, there is a related point that AfD volunteers have other things to do than review topics where attention-to-the-topic by the world at large has increased since the previous nom, and where the nominator is on record that the topic is not a worthless topic.  A redirect out of AfD is not a binding result, and your post makes no attempt to explain why the topic doesn't warrant a standalone article, nor why the material could not be merged.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided a sufficient explanation for why the article should be kept and are instead hiding behind the last AfD. I am not going to argue minor points with you while you refuse to realize that the previous AfD is separate from this AfD. The fact that you insist on hiding behind the previous AfD suggests that you realize that you have a weak case. I also see no validity in your statement that "AFD volunteers have other things to do." Nobody is forcing anyone to be here, so you cannot legitimately complain about having your time wasted when you are willingly choosing to use your time here. Lepricavark (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  The world at large has taken further notice of the topic subsequent to the last AfD which had already established a Wikipedia consensus that the topic is notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous debate does not invalidate the existence of this debate. Consensus is not inherently permanent. Lepricavark (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Previous AfD discussion (#2) was interesting and I agree with many of the arguments presented, such as this comment:

"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 women. Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)"

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the reference to "WP:ROUTINE", User:ThaddeusB replies at 18:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC) saying, "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."  He continues,[reply]

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[ing] 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[ly] unknown author who wins [a] 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... [W]hat we have here is biographical coverage spurred by a contest win, not coverage of the contest where the person is mentioned as winning.

The main thrust of the Legacypac comment you've quoted is directed at small beauty pageants, not the large ones such as those (previously) owned by Donald Trump, and is also directed at pageant winners where there was no subsequent national competition such as is the case here.  The comment is also directed to winners who "go back to obscurity immediately afterward", which is no where close to relevant in the case here.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:ROUTINE applies (placements, when, where, etc), but if another acronym is needed to convey the same thing, then WP:MILL is a good one. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete I don't think there is enough here for notability. Scope creep (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Colorado USA Firstly, I don't see any reason NOT to nominate stuff for deletion as long as there is a gap of 6 months. This is an encyclopaedia, not a random webhost. Also as consensus changes, notability can change as well. Now coming back to the topic, I don't see anything to suggest that the subject is notable. Essentially the subject competed in multiple beauty pageants, only one of which was national level. Seeing that Miss Colorado USA was the only one which was won by the subject, I advocate a redirect there. The subject doesn't pass GNG. Additionally it should be remembered that GNG is not a free pass to an article: GNG is simply the first hurdle an article needs to pass in order to prevent being deleted. An article can be deleted even if is passes GNG btw. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2016 (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.