Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants

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. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants

List of state winners of a teen beauty pageant created from lists that were in articles deleted at

WP:SAL

,

Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.

The state-level winners of teen beauty pageants are generally not notable and Wikipedia does not do articles about them. See, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canden Jackson. This article may be speediable as a {{

db-repost}} ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Considering that I see two blue-linked names on there (one of which is to an apparently unrelated Australian actress, the other to a winner at the national level), and that precedent from the above-noted AFDs suggests there will likely never be articles for these people, I think a list is probably a bad idea. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Redlink farm. I wholeheartedly reject the notion that smushing a whole bunch of non-notable stuff into one big article somehow magically makes it notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at the end of the
PageantUpdater 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm at a loss as to why you think I'm being vindictive. This certainly isn't personal. You might want to consider extending some good faith, even to those who think they are improving Wikipedia by nominating one of your contributions for deletion. I see you did mention your creation of this article in that AfD on July 4, seven days after the nomination. I have to admit that I had stopped paying attention by then as I thought most of the arguments had been made, responded to, queried, counter-rebutted, etc. Also, it was a public holiday in my corner of the world and I was on vacation away from my computer. I apologize if you would have found my response there useful. Although I don't think further responses to AfDs one has participated in are strictly required by WP policy, guideline or practice, I personally try to take a "jury duty" approach to them and check in from time to time.

In any event, I don't see any reasons (beyond
WP:INTERESTING) why this article should be kept. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
To be fair, that was unfair of me. However you last comment is just plain ridiculous. Are you ignoring the large number of Google News hits? THere are a number of articles that I don't see any reason for keeping on here but that doesn't mean I go around nominating them for deletion whilst ignoring that fact that there are hundreds of reliable sources.
PageantUpdater 22:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
(In my
WP:SAL is only a guideline. You are correct, but this guideline enjoys broad support in the community. The most common reason articles are deleted at AfD is for lack of notability, which is itself "only a guideline," after all. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. It appears to consist largely of a list of non-notable people. The notable red links will become articles when someone undertakes the task. --Stormbay 23:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As the name indicates, these were established under the auspices of the
My Name is Earl). My only concern is that the results, now in just their third year, might eventually take up a lot of space (although the current tables take up surprisingly little, at 19K).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs
)

So everything that Miss American organization does is notable? Corpx 01:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly opposed the state articles, and I consider this an acceptable compromise. Where there's a real difference of opinion, a compromised of this sort is the best solution--as with merging non-notable schools into school districts. DGG (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too support compromise, when it's based in policy/guidelines. I can also understand someone who created an article feeling strongly about it. However, I don't believe in compromise simply because someone feels strongly about a matter when a good argument hasn't been advanced. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also (and a minor point), you said you strongly opposed the the state articles? You don't seem to have offered an opinion at the AfD on them. Obviously, this is not required to have a valid opinion at this AfD, I'm just a little confused is all... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per
Tally-ho! 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I also was completely opposed to an article for each state. I had notability issues with the girls individually. But in order to reach consensus, I was and still am willing to concede that the girls as a group with the title are enough to confer notability to the article. Trusilver 02:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable compromise to put them all on one page. Just because they are listed does not mean that every single person on the list is going to have an article. The information is varifable and may be of interest to some. Each state Miss Teen USA contest has it own page (Unless that is the next target for AFD). MAOT is part of Miss America. I suppose the next "compromise could be just put the state info the MAOT page. Or how about if we put the teen winners on the respective Miss State pages for example put Miss California OT on the Miss California page. I am wondering is there any page on wikipedia that the people who oppose this article would find a acceptable place to store this information or do they just want it gone? Smith03 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the the Miss State Outstanding Teen winners int he Miss State articles would be a good compromise, as it would solve the
WP:LISTCRUFT problems with the list up for discussion here. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Nonsense: Putting the winners of
Indy Racing League races. These pageants are in competition with each other. There is no linkage between the two. To think that this is an acceptable compromise shows a basic lack of understanding in the topic, an understanding that should quickly be apparent be reading the articles themselves. Perhaps a better understanding here may have prevented this nomination (and others) from occurring in the first place. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. (edit conflict) A reasonable compromise was reached in the previous AfD discussion. There are currently 26 citations to the article from reliable newspapers throughout the United States, so some notability is asserted and referenced. While the WP:SAL guideline is important, I think this is a reasonable example where
Ignoring all rules is appropriate. A compromise that I would like to see is that the article would not be a collection of red links to contestant articles that can't be started, but rather would be unlinked except for blue links to notable contestants. Royalbroil 02:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per above--Sefringle^Talk 02:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The beauty pagent circuit is inherently notable. Mosquera 07:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable social institution. If the winners are not notable then that is an editorial judgment but the sereis of events are still notable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to be a reasonable compromise. Personally
WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I would agree that it's fairly well sourced and seems to be within the notability of a 1.8 million article encyclopedia. Basically I can't see any compelling reason to delete it. Megapixie 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, this arrangement is an acceptable balance. I've gone ahead and delinked the contestant names, since the consensus view seems to be that their individual articles shouldn't be recreated. --Groggy Dice T | C 06:40, 16 July 2007 (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.