Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Johnson (Miss California USA)

Nicole Johnson (Miss California USA)

Nicole Johnson (Miss California USA) (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)

The 6 sources are more or less split in half. 4 or so are about her being Miss California. 2 are from Thousand Oaks media, thus being extremly local and not much useful. another 1 or 2 appear to be personal reflection/blog pieces. The last 2 are sources that mention her, but really are about her fiance, and so do not go to show she is notable. For her to be notable for her relationship with Phelps we would need more indepth and more sustained coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It looks like the Phelps relationship is swaying the community towards "Keep"; hopefully the article will improve in the future. (Change from Delete Original comment: I edited the article in the past to remove excessive intricate detail cited to local sources, but what's left is not convincing to confirm the subject's notability. She is probably most notable for her relationship with Phelps, but a redirect there would be kind of demeaning. So I'm voting delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, I think hell just froze over lol ;) ---

talk) 02:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  The world at large has noticed this topic in multiple ways.  The son was featured on TV just about two weeks ago, and I'm guessing now that a little research would show that Mom was also in the pictures.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has received significant press for both her title and her relationship with Michael Phelps.
  talk) 00:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment -- what's in the article is
  WP:NOTNEWS. No new sources have been presented at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • [1] [2] [3] [4]
    talk) 23:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Comment, examining the source leaves me uncovinced that the subject meets GNG. For example:

• Cosmopolitan -- fluffy interview
• Brides.com/blog -- non RS as a blog
• NYT -- good article but it's mostly about Ms Johnson's relationship with Phelps, which I don't believe establishes her individual notability for an encyclopedia
• NY Post -- it's a tabloid as I understand, so would not be considered RS for a BLP

Perhaps she can be covered in the "Personal life" section on the Phelps article, as an alternative to deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is plenty of recent precedent that if
  talk) 23:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Article has now been updated with more references
    talk) 00:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep -- Since when is a successful beauty pageant contestant, successful model and noted fiancé of a celebrity NOT enough to establish notability? IF she won Ms. Logjam Creek, AR, I could see the cynicism, but Miss California USA is a prestigious honor. In other examples, I've seen articles on actors who appeared on MTV and had a long resume on IMDB be consider unnotable. Just because it's not ABC, NBC, CBS, or FOX doesn't mean it is not unencyclopedic 2601:C1:2:42EB:3533:E339:CC40:53E4 (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IP (the one over me) and Unscintillating. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pending the outcome of this RFC, then consider relisting if still in question. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 00:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Cosmopolitan interviews are a valid source of notability, "fluff piece" or no, given that they are published under editorial review. The NYT source is sufficiently about the subject for me as well. There seems to be wider attention as well. This all adds up, and is sufficient to establish notability for me. Fieari (talk) 01:03, 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.