Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Wiser

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. Defaults to keep. Nakon 02:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Wiser

Brittany Wiser (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)

Fails

--doncram 22:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for
  Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2010 by User:MissAmericaGirl who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How does a couple short and

WP:ROUTINE articles in the Billings Gazette establish notability? That site's current "hot topics" are Shooting at hospital-Boy Scout theft-Closed restaurants-Mountain lion video-Heights stabbing-Rape charge [2] none of which sound notable enough outside Billings for a Wikipeia article. I did learn she beat 12 other girls to get her crown in Montana. Is that lasting notability? ttacking my credibility with copy paste crap posts is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Attacking the integrity of the encyclopedia with a volume of copy-paste nominations hinged on an untruth about the creators of the articles in question is "not cool". Snide comments about the news in Billings are distractions, not arguments based on facts or policy. - Dravecky (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions, not based on facts or policy, were soundly rejected in the Group AfD. You wanted to deal with these one by one, now you call that attacking the integrity of the encyclopedia? That kind of attack is dangerous. The sourcing to a local news site in Billings is truly underwhelming and clearly

WP:ROUTINE. Legacypac (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:ROUTINE is a subset of the Wikipedia:Notability (events) policy. Which is about events, not people. Brittany Wiser is not an event; she is a person. She is covered by Wikipedia:Notability (people), not the one about events. - Dravecky (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Allow me to present you an argument based on facts then, Dravecky. I just looked back over your cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. You made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. You cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith. Would you care to reconsider? Ravenswing 03:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 this way 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 ) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep on an invalid deletion rationale. The subject here has won the
  WP:AGF. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Update Thanks to the excellent research work done by Dravecky, this article now clearly passes

WP:GNG. And, once again, I note that BLP1E does not apply, especially in this case, as there are 4 different, significant events that the subject of this article has been involved in. BLP1E, as it's name suggests, only requires that there be more than one (i.e., two). Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I've only nominated 10 8 from the batch of 50 so far. Two others were deleted already based on other's actions. There are thousands on these article created by socks or SPAs. If at a time is too many, how many can we go through at a time again? Ejgreen77 - you can't have it both ways. If they are models they fail model. If they are just high school or university students like you argued elsewhere, they are notable for a single event or at best a couple events. Interestingly they are often referred to by their title, not their name, decreasing their notability. I've also discovered that many state level, and for most countries, county level "winners" are simply appointed by a modeling agency to be Miss Whatever at the pageant. These are private businesses and we could create a Miss Wikipedia World Contest, appoint editors to it to represent places, and select a winner on some arbitrary basis. Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 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. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Of the three sources in the article, the first is a broken link, the second is a fleeting mention the sum total of which is "Brittany Wiser of Bozeman is the new Miss Montana. Wiser claimed the 60th annual crown Saturday night," and the third not only comes from the same source, but is the only legit source extant, and runs afoul of WP:GEOSCOPE. A Highbeam search for "Brittany Wiser" turns up only a press release, which is explicitly debarred from proving notability. This is an obvious GNG failure. Ravenswing 03:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has several references to verifiable reliable sources. Passes
  WP:GNG in my view. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: You do understand that the GNG requires multiple verifiable, reliable sources, and not just multiple citations? There are only three references in the article. The first is a broken link which cannot be verified. The second two are the same source. Unless there are other sources you would care to post, this is a demonstrable GNG failure. Ravenswing 05:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC

Comment Ravenswing, your comment above is a rather condescending statement. Passes

WP:GNG is my vote as above. WordSeventeen (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - You need to prove it passes GNG by finding and adding sources here... Your comment pretty much equates to Keep because it's notable and thus is pretty much going to be ignored. –Davey2010^Talk 21:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It has been explained over and over in this pages discussion that there are numerous references (15 now) that are reliable and verifiable sources. They include several newspapers, a magazine and various other websites that follow pageants and the like. I stand by my vote and statement that this article subject passes
  WP:GNG and achieves notability easily. I am not worried about your opinion Davey2010 that my vote won't count. My vote is based on guidelines and policies at WP and it will count. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Small point: the 5th one of the current 15 sources doesn't mention Brittany Wiser at all, but rather is used to support another point (the Cole, Erin (July 6, 2010). "An Uphill Climb for Miss Montana" source). I haven't checked them all. --doncram 18:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I have added a number of reliable sources to the article and used them to expand and improve this biography. While some sources are brief mentions included for purposes of verifiability, a sufficient number of them provide the in-depth coverage of the subject required by
  WP:GNG. I respectfully request that any editor who may have previously !voted to review the article as it now stands and reconsider their evaluation. - Dravecky (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - subject has received RS coverage by a variety of publications and the article is in good shape. BLP1E does not apply - the guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news story, not to say we can't have a bio about people known primarily for one thing (which is the vast majority of all notable people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E applies. This should be included in the article about the event. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I already explained why it doesn't apply - a pageant is not a new event that people accidentally get caught up in. The participants are either notable or not on the basis of coverage (i.e. not automatically notable, not automatically non-notable). The guideline is intended to cover things like a natural disaster where someone is in the news as a hero, or a scandal where someone is in the news as a victim, not competitions. Even if it did apply, that would be an argument to merge, not delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-opening: Doncram has asked me to re-open this discussion. Accept my apologies if my closure was inappropriate. -- Sam ^Sing! 00:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am on the fence about whether this should be kept or deleted/merged/redirected. I tend to think just winning a state contest and being given some automatic coverage should not suffice; it is predictable and not news that someone wins, and it does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia to foolishly provide promotion for a manufactured, temporary persona. Being covered in multiple state/local news stories for what is essentially one event, does not suffice, in my opinion. A winner of just one state tournament should be covered in the article about the state tournament, and their info merged/redirected to there. This subject won 2 separate Montana state tournaments though, and it is not as clean to say the article should be redirected to just one of the Miss Montana and Miss Montana USA articles. I'd be interested to hear specific suggestions about merging/redirecting and where she should be covered, if not in an individual article. --doncram 18:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope any closing decision can discuss the quality of delete vs. keep vs. merge/redirect arguments, not just plunge for one. I did ask editor Sam Sailor, who did a non-admin close on this AFD, to re-open it, because I think it is not an obvious decision to make, IMO. --doncram 18:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since she's won 2 titles, I think it establishes notability & makes me feel
  WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:37, 12 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.