Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamiko Nash

Tamiko Nash

Tamiko Nash (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)

Nash is just not notable. The article attempts to present her being the 3rd African-American to be Miss California USA as somehow notable. However since the title has existed just over 50 years when she was crowned, and about 8% of California's population is African-American, a study of predicted rates shows that it is just not a rare enough occurance to be worth noting. If Trump and the other people over the Miss USA organization had actually ousted the then Miss USA, than Nash might well be notable, but just as the potential person waiting in the wings, we end up with a lot of coat-racking. Nash's being a model on The Price is Right and having a notable husband in neither case make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It might be worth expanding the mention of Tamiko in the article on her husband. It should be kept in mind that wives of American football players just do not get as much attention for being such as wives of football players in Britain get.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly Merge to Terrell Davis, or redirect to Miss USA 2006, in which the subject placed as first runner-up. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Sources include in-depth here, a paragraph here, in-depth here, and in-depth here. Wondering if it's possible that Trump didn't give crown to Tamiko because of racial favoritism (given what the public knows now about Trump). Tamiko's been on TV such as Deal of No Deal. More in-depth coverage here and more in-depth coverage here. Meets the
  general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per divorce news (Original comment Redirect / Merge with
  WP:OUTCOMES
  : spouses of celebrities are covered in the latter articles. She's more notable as a wife of a celebrity than a Miss [State] USA winner.

The coverage presented as "in depth" above is actually Ms Nash's commentary on the situation where the actual Miss could have been stripped of her title, but wasn't :

• Tamiko Nash, Miss California USA 2006, told The Early Show co-anchor Hannah Storm Wednesday, "If I were in the same situation, I would want a second chance. I would want the benefit of the doubt and to give everyone a chance to know the person I really am. The decision's been made. I support Mr. Trump and the Miss Universe organization, and right now it's about moving forward for myself and for Tara."

The rest of the mentions are routine, as pertaining to the same controversy. This is not sufficient to overcome

WP:BIO1E and to build an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Query Reportedly Nash and Davis are divorcing. Are there guidelines on how to handle merge/redirects in those cases? (Meanwhile more generally, it strikes me that she has a lot more coverage than most subnational winners, I suppose I'm only wondering if she gets over BIO1E, and what to do if not.) Innisfree987 (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If her divorce of Davis only gets mentioned because he is notable, than this is not really coverage of her. The exact meaning of "notability is not inherited" is complex, because in some cases, such a royalty, it clearly is, and some people do get coverage basically because of who they are married to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I was unclear-- I wasn't meaning to ask about notability from the divorce, but rather whether a "merge" to a notable spouse is an appropriate solution if the two are divorcing. I mean in some cases it will be necessary to describe, if people are famously divorced from one another, but in most cases I'm not sure it's fair to make someone a Wikipedia redirect to their ex-husband. Which might make a borderline case more worth keeping, for lack of a better way of handling the material. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per tomwsulcer. Pwolit iets (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep * the sources checks out. Plus several other sources above. she covers WP:GNG. Definitely some improvements to the article are needed, but that is not a reason for deletion. she has obviously stayed in the public eye more or less since 2006. BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources listed by
  WP:GNG. The logic for the nomination is her claim to notability is that she was the third African-American to be Miss California USA, but that's not true. The claim to notability is her continued substantial coverage in reliable sources, not some specific notability rule for pageant winners. Avram (talk) 20:35, 11 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.