Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding Teen

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.

Peter

13:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding Teen

Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Alaska's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Arizona's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Arkansas' Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss California's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Connecticut's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Delaware's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Florida's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Kansas Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Miss Nebraska's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nevada's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Oklahoma's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Pennsylvania's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Tennessee's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Texas' Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Washington's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Misguided attempt at creating articles for non-notable state-level teen beauty contests. Each article consists solely of "The Miss X's Outstanding Teen pageant is the competition that selects the representative for the state of X in the

Miss America's Outstanding Teen pageant," followed by the exact same two paragraphs describing the national pageant. Merely being associated with the state competitions of the Miss America

pageant does not make these pageants notable and none of the articles have a single citation. I tried to look for sources but found only the most trivial crap imaginable. I do have to admit, though, that I had only gotten through searching for about half of these pageants, realized I had put far more work into this than the articles' creator and decided "fuck it." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, does not meet
WP:BIO Tatonka79 01:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This account was created the day before this comment. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom Bigdaddy1981 01:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and salt thoroughly~~ per nom. This is listcruft of the worst kind and is deletable under both
WP:NOT#INFO. Trusilver 02:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - remarks to salt seem inappropriate here. There is no history of recreation or vandalism associated with this ceries of articles or by the creator. Salting these would seem to be a contradiction to
WP:SALT. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply - I withdrawal my request to salt. My reason for suggesting it in the first place is how articles of this nature have an above average tendency to come back long after they have been originally deleted. Trusilver 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fact because they are not sourced and aren't well written is no reason to delete them. It simply means that I've had other priorities I've been working on. You're clearly ignoring the sources at
PageantUpdater 03:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
PS I'd only checked a few of the links to pull those diffs up... didn't have time to check the rest. Perhaps if the nominator was so keen to get these deleted, he should have bothered putting some effort in to checking whether he was being sensible.
PageantUpdater 03:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Or if you had put some effort into researching before deciding to create multiple articles by copypasting the exact same text into them, you would have seen that the articles do not have nontrivial mentions in
reliable sources. Do you have a basis for your statement that I was "so keen to get these deleted"? I don't understand the vitriol coming from you. Unless you copypaste differently than I do, these articles did not take you that long to create; so it's not like that much work is being lost. If these pageants have received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (which neither I nor, apparently, anyone else have been able to find) there's nothing to stop you from using those sources to write articles about these pageants. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The time spent was in inputting names, ages, titles and other information. It might not seem time consuming, but it is.

PageantUpdater 00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete all the state articles. All those articles mention is basically just that "This pageant was held @ ___ and ___ won". Corpx 04:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lack of content isn't in itself a reason for deletion.

PageantUpdater 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I meant the newspaper articles! Corpx 06:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Otto4711 13:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Will ^(talk) 13:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all per
WP:NOT. They aren't even real articles, much of the content is the same for each of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
WP:NOT JFW | T@lk 13:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Merge/Weak Delete with no salt~~. This should not be salted because see potential notability, especially if one or more of the state winners becomes famous. The current articles should be merged back into the main article (which would produce little changes to the main article), and the most notable states could have their own section. The articles do not currently meet WP:BIO or WP:NOT standards. PageantUpdater should source a single state article to show how good a state article could become if he/she wants any chance to see this AfD fail. The tone in the nomination for this AfD is very unpleasant and has uncivil portions. Do you realize that we are all volunteers, and that the articles were created in good faith? Royalbroil 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I hadn't noticed that this organization is sister company to the Miss America Organization. It likely is or may soon be considered a major stepping stone to the very notable Miss America competition. I am satisfied with the sourcing on the Miss California article that articles with reliable sources can be made if given time. We need to give the contributors time to flesh out the articles. Many solid articles have started as a stub. Royalbroil 21:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  The citations in the Miss California's Outstanding Teen article do not support the text of that article. They are merely citations to local newspapers saying, essentially, "Local Girl Goes to Pageant." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fifth (last) citation no longer works, but it had been linked to an article about the twin girls. It proved that they had won the pagent, which is good to source. None of the other text in the article appears to be very controversial, so sourcing it would not be necessary IMHO. Royalbroil 04:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That last statement doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Sourcing of articles -- period/full-stop -- is a requirement, not sourcing of controversial bits. --Calton | Talk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." I have suggested that the material is not likely to be challenged. Royalbroil 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well, the material does not necessarily need to be cited, but all information in the article should be verifiable from reliable sources. Only the information in the charts is sourced. No one can find any sources to support the information in the actual article. That the only sources that mention the pageant concern the winner, her high school, hometown, hobbies, etc., this means that the text cannot be expanded beyond the copypasted material (which is primarily about the national pageant anyway). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable competitions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"[C]learly notable"? If they were, you'd think reliable sources would be rather thick on the ground, but they're not. Wikipedia doesn't really do faith-based notability. --Calton | Talk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. There are lots of "contests" be they beauty, talent, sports, "outstanding teen", "congeniality" whatever -- basically, other than a few, as in the top ones, they are all not notable. These included. Carlossuarez46 18:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wouldn't the official teen pageant for Miss America be either #1 or #2 in the list of "top ones"? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
John Vandenberg 02:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - These pageants are the "Teen" pageants of the Miss America series and are therefore clearly notable. They are in slow development which is why content is still weak and why many of the state's articles are not yet created. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - Let's suppose that this is in some way notable. Does that notability mean it has to have fifty articles, one for each state? That is absolutely absurd. At the absolute most, it should have a single article. Trusilver 15:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that the national competition is notable, but not the states. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a relatively new pageant system started by the Miss America Organization for contestants ages 13 to 17. Keep in mind that the national Miss Ameirca's Outstanding Teen Pageant is in only its third year with the national pageant to be held in August 2007. If this is to be a true encyclopedia than this information about the state preliminaries and the very accomplished young women who take part in this program should be includedin Wikipedia.
WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason for inclusion when there aren't sufficient sources to do a good article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment already we've had another crossover between MAOTeen and MTUSA (Wisconsin actually) which bolsters the aritcles' claim to notability. There is a need for individual articles so that each titleholder and results can be listed.
PageantUpdater 21:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
A "crossover" would not be a reason to have a WP article on this topic. If the real reason to have the article is to create a list of each state pageant winner, that would probably not be sufficient to justifying keeping either. A list on Wikipedia should contain members that either have articles about them or should be things/people about which Wikipedia should have articles. It is doubtful that each teen state pageant winner should have her own article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canden_Jackson, regarding state winners for the more notable Miss Teen USA pageant. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I would support certain aspects of this being folded into the Outstanding Teen article, but the fact that these teens won a mildly notable competition doesn't mean that they themselves become notable. This is no different than school articles where we are continuously deleting the names of the so-called 'star' football players that list themselves in the article in connection with winning some obscure title. And besides, as for the girls -
one event does not necessarily confer notability. Trusilver 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
What do you think should be folded into the main article? I couldn't find anything that was not already there. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ObiterDicta, I honestly don't know :), this is me trying to reach a consensus through middle ground that I'm not sure is really there. I suppose it wouldn't be beyond reason to list current titleholders with the main article. I am absolutely one hundred percent against an article for every state, because while being a titleholder confers some vague notability on these girls, I see no reason to list past titleholders per
WP:BLP1E. Trusilver 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

What cannot be folded into any article are the lists of titleholders and results for the national pageant. These are highly important, especially as there are now crossovers.
PageantUpdater 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

These are highly important How? And to whom? --Calton | Talk 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is factual if somewhat trival information, but if people are intersted in this kind of information or topic they have a place to find it. I think this is the type of topic that wikipedia is best made for. Who knows 20 30 years from now a future US President may have got her start as Miss Delaware's Outstanding Teen Smith03 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I obviously agree with the first half of your statement, but the second part is clearly crystal ballism. However what you said is right, Wikipedia is an ideal place for collecting and presenting information of this nature, and whilst I suspect the topic is of little interest to many of those here, those interested in pageants would, I think, find this information highly useful. Isn't that what an encyclopedia (particularly one that is not paper) about?
PageantUpdater 03:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Just to keep things in perspective for those claiming the state pageants are not notable, a Google news searched aimed at picking up all Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageant-related articles picked up about 126 hits [3]. Extending this into the archive shows about 800 hits [4]. I would write more state articles using these references (because information for some states is thinner on the ground than others) but I'm loathe to until this is closed. I hope that the closing admin considers that some of the existing articles, particularly Californias, are well sourced.
PageantUpdater 11:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
comment considering wikipedia has articles on fictional people and things that treat them like they are real. I see no reason not to have articles about real events.Smith03 11:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that, then you best have a read of
this. --Calton | Talk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Googling miss "outstanding teen' will generate a certain number of Ghits, no question there. The issue is whether any of those will be an article about the pageant or simply an item in a local paper about a local girl who went to a pageant and isn't that great and this is where she goes to school, etc. None of the text in the Miss California article is sourced; the only citations appear in the chart of the winners. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just supposing there is a credible source (which in the event of Miss whatever Arizona, there isn't. I checked and all I got was a lot of local coverage and her self-congratulatory homepage), these pages still don't belong here. I think we have already verified that the primary purpose of these pages is the tables to document the current and past winners of said titles. However, to quote
WP:BLP: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Trusilver 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. More minor state-level beauty pageant trivia clogging up the InnerTubes of Wikipedia. A lot of handwaving passing for arguments to keep. --Calton | Talk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about creating a page for each year's national contest 2006 Miss America's Outstanding Teen and than list the 50 state winners on that page .If a person wanted to see who the past Miss Ohio was they can just go thru the various yearsSmith03 20:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's
Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)
:

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.

So, because the state winners don't have articles on them (and don't look likely to have such articles in this lifetime) it is inappropriate to have a list of state winners. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is simply because the girls aren't likely to have individual articles that the lists are useful and important. One of hte arguments made when all the individual articles on the Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates were deleted was that the state lists were there to record their names. And discounting sources because they are in the winners table and not the text is ludicrous.
  PageantUpdater 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
Per Wiki policy
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." Is there any reasonable expectation that all of these girls (or even a few of them) are on the cusp of becoming notable thus warranting inclusion?
Not that it particularly matters, but FWIW,
WP:SAL is a guideline, not a policy. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Inclusion based on them not being notable enough for their own articles is in direct violation of
WP:SAL. Wikipedia policy is just that, policy.Trusilver 22:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I did not participate in those discussions and it is unlikely I would have made that argument. Despite what Calton has so aptly termed "handwaving" it has not been demonstrated that these contestants should be covered at all on Wikipedia. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And discounting sources because they are in the winners table and not the text is ludicrous. See proof by assertion. The reason sources are required is because they are used to write the article. So if they aren't being used to write the article (and do not have material in them that could contribute to the article), they're not demonstrating the notability of the subject of the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)
What I was thinking was that if each National contest had an article like Miss America 2007 so for example Miss America's Outstanding Teen 2007. You would be able to give information about the event and also list the names of each state rep. You would not need 50 or 51 separate articles just one for each year. As for as it not be noteworthy there are a lot of articles and pages in wikipedia that probably are equally trivial that are left alone and what is silly to some is a big deal to others. I am simply trying to suggest away to keep the information but perhaps do on less pages. Do Bo Duke or James T. Kirk need their own articles? Smith03 00:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that wouldn't record each state's history which is what is so important. Anyway, I have an idea...

PageantUpdater 00:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Voila, problem solved. I hope this is a compromise decision we can all be happy with.

PageantUpdater 01:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Believe it or not I was coming back to suggest something like that as well put all the states on one page. I think that is a reasonable compromise Smith03 01:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still have issues with the notability of the individual winners, I think that this is an acceptable compromise if it can result in a consensus. Trusilver 01:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this reasonable compromise too. Royalbroil 05:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above--Sefringle^Talk 05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fifteen minutes of fame aren't. >Radiant< 12:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Question" Is there an expection that each winner is supposed to have her own article? Because I don't think winners should have their own article, unless they go on to do something "important" but I support a list of all the past state winners. Smith03 15:20, 4 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.