Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Connors (2nd nomination)

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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Connors

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

2nd nom. Subject was a state-level beauty pageant winner in 2010. The claim for GNG was apparently based solely on the proliferation of a single news item due to a throwaway comment made by Miguel Batista. Other than that, there's literally nothing about her before or since 2010. Therefore, it appears that, in hindsight, while she has BLP1E coverage for the "Batista incident", she doesn't have "significant, non-trivial coverage" per GNG, and does not meet

WP:NMODEL, as it does not indicate that a state-level pageant winner is notable for that alone. MSJapan (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete I think it is too much to make all state level beauty pageants even in just the top two pageants default notable, and she really has no other claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing particularly better convincing about notability and whether this article can be noticeably better which is unlikely so. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Miss USA 2010 and more press coverage than usual for an ordinary contestant. The threshold may need to be held in general, but throwing out a pitch and the press coverage gets us there in combination with being a national contestant. GNG met by stacking. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Except that out of the top 10 finishers in the 2010 competition, 6 of them don't have articles, and the contestants that did not place (who are listed) also generally don't have articles. Therefore, being a contestant alone is clearly not enough (which is similar to what we say about meeting GNG via nominations for offices and participation in competitions - winning is generally the barometer. The subject also can't inherit notability from the competition. Also see
WP:NTEMP: "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." She threw the pitch because she was Miss Iowa, which is also why she was in Miss USA. Coverage outside of that is nil. MSJapan (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete State level pageant winners should not be considered automatically notable. I have usually seen that contestants from sub-national level contests in other countries countries are deleted, unless they pass GNG. The subject has not received press coverage beyond the contest and subsequent pitch incident - not before nor after. This seems like a classic BLP1E and I see no value in keeping it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:56, 15 June 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.