Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Railsback (3rd 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 no consensus. It's quite clear at this point that this is not heading towards any form of consensus in the near term. I encourage continued discussion on the article talk page, with no prejudice against a further nomination should that discussion lead towards one. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Railsback
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was first kept on bogus arguments that all Miss USA contestants are notable, a bogus argument put forward almost two years ago. It is being exposed as being bogus, and in this case there is not even the one event clutter we see with some such arguments. The second time this article was in a massive deletion request, a set of requests that resulted in keep with a clear indication that state pageant winners were not default notable. It is time this article, and other unsourced articles on non-notable people who won local beauty pageants be purged from Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep article itself does need work, but there is no policy violation. Reliable sources can be found simply by clicking on the "news" link above and we find quickly that although there is no "blanket guideline" for pageant contestants when it comes to notability, we find that no such guideline or rule is needed when the general notability guideline is met.  I see that as the case here, for example this article in Newsweek where she is featured prominently -- and was carried also by CNN Money.  These as well as the other articles show that the subject passes notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * note previous nomination links aren't showing up properly--here they are: Articles for deletion/Alexis Railsback closed 4 Jan 2015 and then Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie closed 30 January 2015.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed: I've changed the last name from Alewxis --> Alexis in Special:Prefixindex. Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Miss Kansas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2015 winner. North America1000 10:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOREASON Why? Giving a command is not a reason.  For what reason should it be done?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As a valid search term, when readers type in the subject's name, they will be taken to a page that contains some information about the subject. North America1000 17:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason to delete the article. The subject already has an article with that information.  Abraham Lincoln is a valid search term too, but we shouldn't delete that article.  Does it violate a policy?  Does it fail to meet a specific guideline?  We need a valid reason.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Per available sources, the subject is notable for one event. North America1000 18:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I count multiple events: Miss Kansas 2015 (event held November 2014) and Miss USA 2015 (event held summer 2015)--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * She did not win Miss USA 2015; she's not notable for that. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not state that she won the event, she competed in the event and her active involvement in the competition created coverage, thus passing WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep per meeting WP:BASIC. There is some coverage of the subject's participation in Miss USA 2015, but not a great deal. This provides one ¶, some coverage here inre Donald Trump's statements and the Miss USA 2015 pageant. Additional sources covering the subject include:, , North America1000 20:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The event Railsback is winning Miss Iowa USA, competing in Miss USA is an outgrowth of that, not a seperate event. Anyway events can extend over more than just one day. The point is it is only one aspect of Railsback's life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Response #1 It was Miss Kansas USA. Are you sure you've read the article closely to comment fairly?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Response #2 where is there any reference to a policy, rule, or guideline that "one event" is the same as "one aspect" ?? It's not in WP:BLP1E which is clear that it is for one event. The word "aspect" isn't even on the page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete there's no way we can argue that every contestant from every Miss USA pageant is notable. This one is clearly not; she has no other articles in any reliable sources that have her as the primary subject, totally fails every notability test. CrispyGlover (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply How is this a failure of WP:GNG?--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- the sources offered at this AfD provide trivial or local coverage, for example:
 * Miss USA 2015 Contestant Photos: Meet 51 Beauty Queens Hoping To Win The Crown! -- the subject gets one paragraph in a "catalog" of 51 contestants
 * Shawnee Dispatch is extremely local coverage; kansascity.com is also local
 * Newsweek' is not a coverage of Ms Railsback, but the coverage of the Trump controversy, in which she's cited: "Following the networks dumping the pageant, at least one Miss USA contestant expressed her disappointment. Alexis Railsback, Miss Kansas, told the Kansas City Star the pageant was "taking the brunt for Donald Trump's speech," which was "really unfortunate and kind of unfair."
 * This is insufficient to build a bio article. Even with addition of these sources, the article will remain a WP:PSEUDO biography on an individual famous for WP:BIO1E. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Local coverage" is not a phrase used at WP:GNG, "trivial" is not used here in the policy-based sense from WP:GNG, the essay about a "pseudo" biography is an argument to redirect, and implying that the nationwide coverage in the Newsweek article provided a zero contribution to WP:GNG notability is not policy-based analysis. Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Being sited as a "person on the street" source, as Newsweek did with Railsback is not generally considered to add to the notability of a given individual. If Newsweek had written the article as a story of the hard work that Railsback had gone through to get to the pageant to show why the pageant should not be attacked as a proxy for Trump, than that would be one thing, but she just has passing mention which is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Response she wasn't quoted as a "person on the street" but was quoted as an expert on the topic.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- she was quoted as a contestant (i.e. the person being affected by the controversy), not as an "expert" the pageant business. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that is true or at least a point of view, but it's certainly more than a "person on the street" as alleged.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The point for notability is that the reliable sources made her a focus of national political attention. She received this attention not as a random selection from among 51 contestants, but because among those 51 she also had Mexican heritage  was the first of those with Mexican heritage to speak out .  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added a few sources to show the kind of coverage she, a typical pageant winner gets. All claims of WP:BLP1E against almost all beauty pageant winners are invalid.  They win a State or National title, then, separately go on to compete at the next higher level.  Equate this to WP:NSPORT where every athlete has to qualify at their preliminary level before going to a major competition.  In this case she already has won Miss Kansas, she also got coverage for previous attempts in Miss Kansas Teen, then the coverage, perhaps routine in that every Miss USA contestant does get multiple individual coverage situations when they are participating in a major pageant.  And, her quote in Newsweek was not an accident.  It was quoted from the original source, the Kansas City Star, who did not pick her to quote at random.  She was the local celebrity (I guess you could say Miss Missouri would also be a potential candidate for such a story) most affected by the Trump situation.  I would say Trump is a big, notable story.  Along with him comes collateral damage which also gets coverage.  Alexis Railsback is the face of that collateral damage.  Instead of being seen by millions on a national network, a place for a (modeling, acting, philanthropic . . .) career to leap off from, her pageant was seen by 38,000 people on youtube. Trackinfo (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- comparing pageantry with national or international sports is unconvincing, as the event is not significant and well known. It's a national event (second to Miss America, probably); contestants are not professional athletes; and the event was not covered on national TV. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * From our article, "Reelz (also known as REELZCHANNEL) is an American digital cable and satellite television network...As of February 2015, Reelz is available to approximately 68.2 million pay television households (58.6% of households with at least one television set) in the United States." Unscintillating (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Miss USA 2015 was covered on Reelz, ref July 14, 2015, "To the surprise of no one, the Miss USA Pageant clocked its lowest-ever audience of under a million viewers".  "Reelz noted The Miss USA Pageant got sampled by 2.5 million viewers during its live telecast and a repeat immediately following."  "...the pageant snared ...38 million viewers in 1979."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. violation of the policy NOT DIRECTORY. Winners of state0-wide beauty contests do not meet the notability standard, except for the ones that are part of Miss America. The trivial nature of the sources in this instance confirms it.  DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)```
 * I'd love to know where you made up that piece of rubbish. Nowhere here has it been affirmed that USA titleholders are any different to America titleholders.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the same kind of idea that calls the American League the "Junior Circuit" league in baseball, "It is sometimes called the Junior Circuit because it claimed Major League status for the 1901 season, 25 years after the formation of the National League (the "Senior Circuit")." Miss America dates back to 1921.  Miss USA didn't start until 1952, so the idea that Miss USA is a startup competition might well remain with people who grew up in the 60s and before, but as quoted above, Miss USA received 38 million viewers in 1979.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but didn't see anything relevant. Please clarify.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Only one of those sources could be considered significant coverage & it's from a local newspaper. Err on the side of conservatism here, as I'm not seeing the level of coverage that has lead to keep closures on other articles --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep See the coverage of this topic at Miss USA 2015.  This topic is significant in the encyclopedia, so there is no possibility of a notability-based deletion for this topic.  The sources show that as a Miss USA 2015 contestant with Mexican-American heritage, this topic became a focus of national political attention in the fallout from Trump's presidential announcement that led to cancellation of Univision and NBC television coverage of Miss USA 2015.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: I would suggest redirect but I don't want my !vote not counted because that option is not on the table. Reasoning: The long list of primary references, that is "...original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.", that also states, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.". The lack of multiple secondary references, not satisfying WP:BIO1E, and arguably WP:NMODEL (are pageant entrants models?). One source states "This is because the pageant organization wants to promote a woman that has modeling potential on top of everything else they look for in a winner.". Contestants do model clothes, that can include swimwear, walk a runway several times, and entering a "beauty contest" leads to exposure for professional modeling. Placing or winning certainly leads to modeling offers. Is being a beauty contestant modeling? We can call it modeling, non-professional modeling, amateur modeling, or entertainment (entertainers) if it makes some people feel better. The fact that a subject is notable exclusively for one event, and being involved as collateral damage caused by trump does not count as that can be covered on the Donald Trump article, nor does other trivial pageants, is a line we need to draw until there is something like NPAGEANT with community consensus for application. The article is a long list of primary references (some that are advertising) that are not supported by secondary sources. Someone once was quoted as saying "If you don't like a rule... just follow it... reach on the top... and change the rule.", otherwise we have policies and guidelines. I have listed several that this article is not in compliance with. Out of 20 references, at least two are dead, 3 or 4 or secondary coverage about one event, and the rest are primary coverages about one event. One reference advertises her Sherri Hill fashion, Chinese Laundry shoes, and "Sun Kitten" (A sponsor) swimwear. Otr500 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've cleared out a lot of the extraneous "references" & trivialities etc... and to be blunt there's not much left after the cull. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like a nice stub article to me. Maybe even a "start" -- Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant in terms of source material. She's mentioned/quoted tangentially in one, the Newsweek article quotes that, one is a fluff piece and the JCCC is only there to verify a couple of things.  Even I can see that's not enough for a keep.  Articles have been redirected with more reliable sources & potential notability than this  article. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Talyah Polee should have been speedy kept or moved to the talk page as Wrong Forum, but administrators are reluctant to police AfD. The nominator had tried to redirect the article, before trying to get the article deleted using AfD.  But it is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as far as this discussion is concerned.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per the other keep arguments. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  18:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment An editor has removed most of the sources in the article, including one I had added earlier in this AfD from cnn.com.  Here are the sources before the removal:
 * Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed those because none of those meet WP:RS. They're blogs, personal websites, or the barest of passing mentions of the subject.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * CNNMoney is part of cnn.com, which is one of the most famous news organizations in the world. It is a WP:RS.  You've also made unsourced claims that I consider unlikely that Channel 6 in Lawrence, Channel 26 in Wichita, the Orlando Sentinel, the NY Daily News (the fourth largest newspaper in the US), and the Wyandotte Daily are not WP:RS.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you, it's not going to go anywhere. Orlando Sentinel was one image in the midst of a gallery of every single contestant.  That doesn't demonstrate individual notability here.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I will admit to being overblown in showing all the sources where this subject is getting coverage. They wouldn't belong in an normal article, but were included because of this unnecessary attack on the subject.  I have repeatedly shown that these pageant winners get coverage locally when they win city and state pageants as well as the coverage they get for being part of the higher level pageant.  These two factors remove the argument of WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG, because multiple events are established and extensive coverage is established.  Yes we should keep the articles here reasonable, but do not ignore that these sources exist.  And more importantly, do not take the clean up as an excuse to blank the article. Trackinfo (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed those because none of those meet WP:RS. They're blogs, personal websites, or the barest of passing mentions of the subject.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * CNNMoney is part of cnn.com, which is one of the most famous news organizations in the world. It is a WP:RS.  You've also made unsourced claims that I consider unlikely that Channel 6 in Lawrence, Channel 26 in Wichita, the Orlando Sentinel, the NY Daily News (the fourth largest newspaper in the US), and the Wyandotte Daily are not WP:RS.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you, it's not going to go anywhere. Orlando Sentinel was one image in the midst of a gallery of every single contestant.  That doesn't demonstrate individual notability here.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I will admit to being overblown in showing all the sources where this subject is getting coverage. They wouldn't belong in an normal article, but were included because of this unnecessary attack on the subject.  I have repeatedly shown that these pageant winners get coverage locally when they win city and state pageants as well as the coverage they get for being part of the higher level pageant.  These two factors remove the argument of WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG, because multiple events are established and extensive coverage is established.  Yes we should keep the articles here reasonable, but do not ignore that these sources exist.  And more importantly, do not take the clean up as an excuse to blank the article. Trackinfo (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed those because none of those meet WP:RS. They're blogs, personal websites, or the barest of passing mentions of the subject.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * CNNMoney is part of cnn.com, which is one of the most famous news organizations in the world. It is a WP:RS.  You've also made unsourced claims that I consider unlikely that Channel 6 in Lawrence, Channel 26 in Wichita, the Orlando Sentinel, the NY Daily News (the fourth largest newspaper in the US), and the Wyandotte Daily are not WP:RS.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you, it's not going to go anywhere. Orlando Sentinel was one image in the midst of a gallery of every single contestant.  That doesn't demonstrate individual notability here.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I will admit to being overblown in showing all the sources where this subject is getting coverage. They wouldn't belong in an normal article, but were included because of this unnecessary attack on the subject.  I have repeatedly shown that these pageant winners get coverage locally when they win city and state pageants as well as the coverage they get for being part of the higher level pageant.  These two factors remove the argument of WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG, because multiple events are established and extensive coverage is established.  Yes we should keep the articles here reasonable, but do not ignore that these sources exist.  And more importantly, do not take the clean up as an excuse to blank the article. Trackinfo (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed those because none of those meet WP:RS. They're blogs, personal websites, or the barest of passing mentions of the subject.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * CNNMoney is part of cnn.com, which is one of the most famous news organizations in the world. It is a WP:RS.  You've also made unsourced claims that I consider unlikely that Channel 6 in Lawrence, Channel 26 in Wichita, the Orlando Sentinel, the NY Daily News (the fourth largest newspaper in the US), and the Wyandotte Daily are not WP:RS.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you, it's not going to go anywhere. Orlando Sentinel was one image in the midst of a gallery of every single contestant.  That doesn't demonstrate individual notability here.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I will admit to being overblown in showing all the sources where this subject is getting coverage. They wouldn't belong in an normal article, but were included because of this unnecessary attack on the subject.  I have repeatedly shown that these pageant winners get coverage locally when they win city and state pageants as well as the coverage they get for being part of the higher level pageant.  These two factors remove the argument of WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG, because multiple events are established and extensive coverage is established.  Yes we should keep the articles here reasonable, but do not ignore that these sources exist.  And more importantly, do not take the clean up as an excuse to blank the article. Trackinfo (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed those because none of those meet WP:RS. They're blogs, personal websites, or the barest of passing mentions of the subject.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * CNNMoney is part of cnn.com, which is one of the most famous news organizations in the world. It is a WP:RS.  You've also made unsourced claims that I consider unlikely that Channel 6 in Lawrence, Channel 26 in Wichita, the Orlando Sentinel, the NY Daily News (the fourth largest newspaper in the US), and the Wyandotte Daily are not WP:RS.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you, it's not going to go anywhere. Orlando Sentinel was one image in the midst of a gallery of every single contestant.  That doesn't demonstrate individual notability here.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I will admit to being overblown in showing all the sources where this subject is getting coverage. They wouldn't belong in an normal article, but were included because of this unnecessary attack on the subject.  I have repeatedly shown that these pageant winners get coverage locally when they win city and state pageants as well as the coverage they get for being part of the higher level pageant.  These two factors remove the argument of WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG, because multiple events are established and extensive coverage is established.  Yes we should keep the articles here reasonable, but do not ignore that these sources exist.  And more importantly, do not take the clean up as an excuse to blank the article. Trackinfo (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you, it's not going to go anywhere. Orlando Sentinel was one image in the midst of a gallery of every single contestant.  That doesn't demonstrate individual notability here.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I will admit to being overblown in showing all the sources where this subject is getting coverage. They wouldn't belong in an normal article, but were included because of this unnecessary attack on the subject.  I have repeatedly shown that these pageant winners get coverage locally when they win city and state pageants as well as the coverage they get for being part of the higher level pageant.  These two factors remove the argument of WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG, because multiple events are established and extensive coverage is established.  Yes we should keep the articles here reasonable, but do not ignore that these sources exist.  And more importantly, do not take the clean up as an excuse to blank the article. Trackinfo (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Kansas, Alexis Railsback: Alexis Selena Railsback was born on September 8, 1995 in Overland Park, Kansas. She has a fraternal twin sister named Ashley, and a 17-year-old brother named Jordan. She grew up in Shawnee, Kansas where she lives now. She graduated from Shawnee Mission Northwest High School in 2014. She is a freshman at Johnson County Community College where she plans to obtain her Associate of Arts Degree. She plans to graduate from the University of Missouri-Kansas City with a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration, and to attend Cosmetology school to become a licensed makeup artist. Alexis' dream job is to travel the world working as a professional makeup artist in the entertainment and fashion industry and to create her own line of cosmetics one day. Alexis is third-generation Mexican-American from her mother and of German descent from her father. She feels that having a biracial upbringing has taught her to appreciate diversity and other cultures."  The article notes: "Alexis Railsback, 19, took the crown of 2015 Miss Kansas USA in November and New Year's Day signaled the beginning of her year as Miss Kansas. She will tour the state, raising money for numerous charities and making special appearances as this year's winner. She also begins her training for the Miss USA pageant. The title came as a shock to the Shawnee Mission Northwest graduate. It was her first time competing in the Miss Kansas USA pageant. She had only competed in two previous Miss Teen Kansas pageants where she came in fourth runner-up two years ago and in the top 15 on her second try. ... Railsback was supported at the Wichita competition in November by her parents, John and Robin Railsback, grandparents and aunt and uncle. She said she was proud to represent Shawnee at the competition as her hometown. She was born in Overland Park, but moved to Shawnee when she was 3 and attended Sunflower Elementary School and Westridge Elementary School." <li> The article notes: "The youngest competitor in this year’s drama-filled Miss USA pageant is Alexis Railsback, a 19-year-old from Shawnee who graduated from Shawnee Mission Northwest just last year. In May, the Miss USA organization sent a film crew to Kansas City to make a “Road to the Crown” video — something new this year — about Railsback. She was one of a handful of contestants to get a hometown visit. The pageant interviewed her at home and shot footage around town for a video that will be shown during the pageant."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alexis Railsback to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * I agree with that WP:BLP1E is inapplicable because  there are two events: "Miss Kansas 2015 (event held November 2014) and Miss USA 2015 (event held summer 2015)". Cunard (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Road to the Crown" video reveals that the mayor of Shawnee declared May 31, 2015, to be "Alexis Railsback Day". Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I believe we should also consider BLP concerns. For example, pls see this article from my watchlist: "successfully ran two companies into the ground". An article on a pageant winner contained information on a minor shoplifing offense for 6 years: "...was charged with shoplifing from Target". So these bios are a double edged sword, and not always a good thing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What "unnecessary attack on the subject" are you referencing? @ Cunard: It is not WP:BLP1E but WP:BIO1E.
 * Bringing an article to AfD is an attack on the subject of the article. It is intended to delete content.  Essentially the nom is saying, and is trying to get the rest of us to endorse the idea that the entire subject of the article is not worthy of wikipedia and that the work of all previous editors of the article have been worthless.  Unnecessary comes from their failure to do a WP:BEFORE.  Had they done a BEFORE, essentially meaning a simple google search, they would have found all the sources I added and wouldn't have caused the AfD to happen. Trackinfo (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If we count every sentence towards notability Alexis is very famous. Counting the Miss USA 2015, for which she did not even place, is drawing straws and does not even gain honorable mention towards notability. Trumps derogatory comments could be directed at about 55 million hispanics so each of them have one check mark towards notability. The comments did not affect the outcome of the pageant nor was it stated that Miss Alexis possibly did not win the title because she was Mexican. Yes! @ K.e.coffman: BLP concerns not only should be considered but the WMF demands this.


 * "Just" the fact that Alexis won Miss Kansas USA is not sufficient for notability. Were it not for that one win, none of the rest of these discussions would matter.
 * Trackinfo stated "Yes we should keep the articles here reasonable, but do not ignore that these sources exist.", but in the same paragraph states "I have repeatedly shown that these pageant winners get coverage locally when they win city and state pageants as well as the coverage they get for being part of the higher level pageant.". Which is it then, should we allow articles on every pageant winner, every pageant delegate at the national level, every teen pageant winner that "might" lead to a national title? We already have many, many coatrack articles and pseudo-biographical articles that will permanently remain under sourced, sourced with primary sources only, or not sourced. Why is that a goal at all?
 * You suggest there is a contradiction to my comments? Not at all.  Alexis Railsback represents what is consistent with all contestants in the historically network televised Miss USA Pageant and Miss America Pageant.  They all achieve WP:GNG news coverage for multiple events.  1) winning their state level Pageant.  2) the subsequent reign as their state level title holder 3) their competition at the upper level pageant.  I sourced all three categories of coverage because this article is under attack.  We shouldn't need to write that detail, but it exists.  This article and articles like it should never have to go to AfD because all those sources exist for every contestant.  Each spends a year as a statewide celebrity in addition to the two pageants (and really a third city level pageant before the state).  I can't control the poor writing of hundreds of other editors, or can you.  The failure of them to post those sources or to write the details of those title reigns does not mean all that coverage does not exist.  Anybody doing a proper WP:BEFORE will see that and should lay off.  The onus should be on the nominating editor to prove the sources don't exist.  I did not mention other tournaments because are not as important.  How do we know this?  Because there is not as much coverage.  And I could be wrong about the others because I haven't researched them.  I have researched a number of these winners as they have been brought to AfD and I consistently find sources other deletionists seem to be blind to.  That is a deliberate, disingenuous process in order to eliminate these articles based on their objection to the class of subject. Trackinfo (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Marline Barberena was recently closed (non-admin closure) because of a vote count. The subject has 1 primary source, a Wikipedia entry, and one reference. That one, in Spanish, has a big picture of Karen Celebertti, and goes into detail about Miss Nastassja Bolivar and mentions Silhuetas SA, Miss Nicaragua 2013, Miss Nicaragua, Miami, Nicaragua, Moscow, Miss Universe, and a Mrs. Olga Isabel Cifuentes. Guess what I could not find? My glasses may be broke but I didn't even see Marline Barberena mentioned anywhere. A keep "vote" stated "as this is a national winner of a pageant that feeds into Miss Universe. The consensus is still developing, but while a lot of the smaller international pageants may not have national winners being notable, this is the biggest game out there." This biographical article has had 38 editors since 2014-3-16 and not one actual reference. Is this really a good goal for Wikipedia? Should we just throw away all the rules and let corporate sponsors have their way with paid advertising editors, or choose some point where we limit inclusion to policy and guidelines?


 * Most of these types of articles do actually violate BLP policy by lack of references alone but if this one, or Marline Barberena, and many like them remain, they will look exactly like they are now, five or ten years from now, because several small pageants, a "one time wonder" of one state win, and an entry in a national competition will be all there is. There is no "attack" on Miss Alexis and shame on Trackinfo if his reference was towards editors trying to make a better encyclopedia.


 * From WP:BIO1E: "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Similarly, a person may be generally famous, but notable for only a single event.". However you want to stretch it this article on Alexis Railsback, who still only has some fame for a one time event, is a bio article, and is therefore mandated to be held to a higher level of sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment--it's still more than one event. WP:BIO1E does not apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment One sentence, or one picture with a caption, contributes to WP:GNG.  We see here more than one editor who openly admits to not making policy based GNG arguments.  Nor are these arguments marked with WP:IAR, as the argument would then be required to explain why disregarding GNG helps to build the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk)
 * Comment BLP has drawn attention as part of the effort to deflect attention from the corpus of evidence.  But WP:BLP is one of the few policies that is supported by the external force of law at Wikipedia.  A search on WP:DEL9 shows only one mention at AfD.  You'd think with the level of concern that there would have been many AfDs closed as BLP violations, but the inference is that our content contributors and bots together with a supported policy are doing their job.  Note that the twice-cited WP:PSEUDO explains why the essay WP:Avoiding harm is an essay and not part of the BLP policy.
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"

During the development of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, one of the principles considered was, "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm.'"

This principle was ultimately rejected: while avoiding harm remains an important consideration within our living persons policy, doing no harm has been found to be incompatible with our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about all subjects, including living people.
 * }
 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I took a look at one of those articles cited to be an example of a BLP problem cited above, ref. The supposed BLP violation lasted all of three seconds before being reverted by Cluebot, [ref].  Nor was this an article about a pageant winner.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment We've now seen four examples of WP:OSE.  Deletion arguments keep trying to reduce the focus of attention away from the entire corpus of evidence that this topic has received the attention of the world at large over a period of time (WP:N nutshell).  CNN is not a WP:RS(?)  Only the pageant in Kansas can be allowed to contribute to GNG (since when does Wikipedia only like people who win?).  And all of those sources in Kansas (width 410 miles) can be discounted as local as per WP:CORPORATION (cited by two to three delete !votes).  Coverage in Orlando and N Y City is not really evidence, because, you know, pictures are for people to look at, and such pictures don't represent attention given to the topic by the WP:RS(?)  Yet this topic is truly a special case, as a state pageant winner who has transitioned to become a focus of national political attention, generated by the fallout from the controversy following the announcement of Donald Trump to become president of the US.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The analysis about WP:BIO1E is spot on and in any case it doesn't pass WP:GNG. GNG is not a free pass to an article - it is a guideline which needs to be seen in context of WP:NOT as well as WP:NOPAGE. We need to exclude sources with tangential coverage as notability cannot be inherited. This source for example cannot be used for GNG purposes because the article is about the event with a tangential mention of the subject. This is not significant coverage. (in contrast, an article about the subject with a tangential mention of the event would be useful). I'm also cautious about using local sources for GNG purposes because they tend to give disproportionate coverage to local events. Using local sources would make a whole lot of people "notable" which precisely goes against WP:NOTDIR. The way I see it, the subject has received some coverage for being crowned Miss Kansas USA but the rest of coverage is tangential. BIO1E, so I am OK with a delete or redirect to Miss Kansas USA. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reminder WP:BIO1E applies only for "one event" by definition. Since the coverage is for more than one event and is over a reasonably significant period of time, it does not apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Notable for only one event is different from Coverage for only one event. The quality of coverage determines at what point is a subject notable for more than one event. Overhere, I still see a BIO1E. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * True. But also understand that just because one of those events is a state pageant it does not disqualify it from consideration.  There is still the coverage of the two events and time period to consider.  "Not automatically qualifying" is different from "disqualifying" or "not allowed to consider" (my quotes, for emphasis)--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * you say that the newsweek article "is not significant coverage" (using a non-policy-based definition of the word significant). However, as I just posted in Further Reading at the article, two people who disagree with you are Robin Leach, of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, and writer for the Las Vegas Sun; and Matt Drudge, well-known conservative political commentator, who now writes and reports from Miami.  Whose opinion do Wikipedia editors follow here, Matt Drudge and Robin Leach, or Lemongirl1942?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Matt Drudge and Robin Leach are not Wikipedia editors, but I am. So we can follow my opinion ! OK, but seriously, the coverage in both their news reports is limited to one sentence along with a quote. This is trivial coverage. Had there been something more I might have considered, but a quote is very trivial. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that these are policy-based statements. "Trivial" as used at WP:GNG is an extremely low bar.  Trivial coverage is coverage like a listing in a phone book.   There is no reason to ignore one sentence.  WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage...does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  One sentence can be trivial, but generally it is significant.  One sentence can be used to write an encyclopedic sentence.  A sufficient number of one-sentence mentions can satisfy wp:notability.   This is not to be confused with the other use of the word "significant" at WP:GNG, which requires a significant amount of significant (non-trivial) coverage.   There is also a difference in depth of coverage in "Beauty queens in Louisiana were in agreement with Miss Kansas, 19-year-old Alexis Railsback, a third-generation Mexican-American..." and something like "Alexis Railsback was born in Shawnee."  Calling a quote "trivial" is an incorrect analysis, as the quote itself is primary material, and WP:GNG doesn't consider primary material.  However, the quote itself uses space in the source, indicates the editorial decision to select the quote, and carries  the expected due diligence of a reliable source to quote accurately; and these are all evidence of attention to the topic.  Since evidence of notability is cumulative, editors can't just say that the topic fails WP:GNG if they are ignoring significant amounts of evidence of direct attention to the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments: @ Unscintillating; Thanks for your input. This is a compliment and not a slur. When I receive a rebuttal to something that is not just a whim reply I look at it closely. WP:Avoiding harm is certainly an essay. It has prominence on Wikipedia, with 44 editors weighing in, and I could show you where other "essays", that are supported by broad community support, has been used as a rationale to block or ban an editor by admins. I am very sure this is not needed because likely you, certainly myself, and other editors here, use other such community supported essays when it is warranted. Essays are not policy or guidelines but when they become used by the community at large they become part of Wikipedia standards. This "essay" has a lot to offer and concerning Pseudo-biographies (WP:PSEUDO), to borrow words from Mel B and Lemongirl942 is "spot on". That essay also mentions Coatrack articles (that has involved 141 editors) in the same sentence (#3) and that is certainly something all editors should look at especially concerning BLP's. Using WP:OSE, or even GNG, as well as IAR, by themselves or as a group, could be argued as reasoning to have an article on every local weatherman (or woman) that is on TV, with local daily newspaper coverage as references, but all these policies, guidelines, and even essays, are used in conjunction to establish a criteria. Where do we stop? Local coverage used as a reference for content is important but not as sole reasoning for an article. Some editors would advocate for well referenced local city, state, or regional pageants. I have run into this concerning scientists that are published "within their circle" but have only primary sources or scientific journal essays, somewhat like Atul Kumar, that was previously deleted and appeared again, and there are editors that think there should be a limit. Trying to count trivial pageants, coverage that is actually some collateral damage (Trump) that actually did not affect the subject and should be on the appropriate pageant article, or in one case, that contains the rationale for keep "Please don't delete this article because she is going to compete in a national pageant and might win", does create a running count to by-pass WP:BIO1E. If a contestant won a Miss Best diaper" pageant, that is not notable, we should not count that as a rationale if she wins a state contest, for reasoning to have an article on Wikipedia because the subject is excluded from bio1E. Otr500 (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * worth mentioning if a contestant won a "Miss Best diaper" pageant and received significant coverage through third party reliable sources, they could be considered notable. It's not the participation in or the winning of anything that makes a person notable, it's the coverage of the person.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment New additions to Further Reading
 * Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment In this diff the nominator shows that he doesn't think that there is a problem with this article that needs anything more than normal editing.  He was then told "Discuss before redirecting, but there is no discussion on the talk page.   How is it that one moment you want to redirect this article, the next moment you ignore advice to discuss on the talk page, and the next your nomination is asserting that the topic should be purged?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Arguments for inclusion of a little known subject, that is still a BLP subject to a higher standard, with only fleeting and passing fame, and no actual notability, should be redirected or deleted. Arguments for keep is digging for needles in a haystack to make her famous or notable, and is an argument that supports having a billion other articles on nobodies (maybe advancing "other stuff exists"), only because she won a state pageant. Her comments about Trump were made while competing in one she didn't even place in, and this is utterly astounding since being a semifinalist in Miss Kansas Teen USA 2014 and 4th runner-up to Miss Kansas Teen USA 2013 are insignificant events, only leaving her the one win event for some notability.
 * Alexis did not place in the top 10, 15, or even 20 in Miss USA. Miss Natasha Martinez also made statements about Trump, and was a Miss California USA 2015. Miss Massachusetts Polikseni Manxhari (did not place in Miss USA), that immigrated to the US at age 5, said "It's a free country. People can say whatever they like, and that's the beauty of our country," "I wasn't really insulted. I just kept moving. I just took it with a grain of salt.". Jillian Wunderlich (Top 15) spoke out against what he said, as did 1st runner up Ylianna Guerra and others, so this is not something notable to count towards having a stand-alone article.
 * Check this out: The supposed bio information link, apparently from her college Johnson County Community College, which would be a primary source (her college, closely related to the subject, etc..) about this person, has issues and returns "We seem to have misplaced something... The page you are looking for cannot be found.".
 * These "skeleton" bio's are created, and unless something in the future adds to notability, they remain poorly sourced mini-BLP's especially when there is only manufactured notability. That is a fact and a reason why I would think only the subjects relatives, someone involved in the pageants, or someone wanting an article about everything in the world on Wikipedia, would actually try to keep an article on her. She may one day be "famous" or "notable", maybe not, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we should wait until then because winning anything, especially only one event like a "Miss Best diaper" pageant or even "Miss Kansas USA 2015, does not make someone "notable" without multiple secondary sources.


 * Throughout this protracted AFD, wiki-lawyering supporting keep with things like "but look at the "Further reading" that was added", and after 3 deletion nominations, there just is not enough (multiple) secondary sources to back up notability.
 * @ Paul McDonald, show me where everything listed under the "Personal life" bio section, supported by a dead primary link, is not considered original research. The content is not supported by source and even if you slide in a link to a pageant bio in the "External links" section, to use as a reference, which would be a primary source and not acceptable on any article let alone a BLP, and certainly not using a link in the external links section for a reference, is further proof of a lack of notability. This is why trying to manufacture notability does not work and fails WP:BASIC that states "...significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.". The best reason in support of not having a stand-alone article is "It's not the participation in or the winning of anything that makes a person notable, it's the coverage of the person.", and there is simply not enough "coverage" on this person with only the one state title win. Otr500 (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Otr500 I agree with everything you've said here. I just wanted to clarify the JCCC link - when I did a major clearout last week, I left that one in not to support any form of notability but simply because it verified the statement that she attended that institution.  As of last week the link was live.  But yeah, I agree with everything else you've said.  Just because there's passing references to her in articles doesn't mean they support notability, which is why I did a significant copyedit and removed most of the fluff.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Turns out when I completed the references I pasted the link twice, hence it showing as a dead link. Have fixed it.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strange you should ask me on that particular issue because I have not addressed it, but if you like--the entire "Personal life" section is sourced from Johnson County Community College as a sort of "here's one of our students that did something cool" articles. It's safe to say that JCCC has nothing to do with the pageant, and it's also safe to say that JCCC is not owned by anyone in the Railsback family--with the added detail that it's an academic institution I'd call it safe to say it's not "original research" -- it's therefore just as useful as any other "personal life" section from the biography pages on Wikipedia:  interesting information worthy of conclusion, sourced, reliable, third-party sourced data.  Doesn't violate any policy and is a "nice-to-have" section.  If anyone thinks that section should not be in the article, that's fine--that's an "editing" issue and not a "deletion" issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the link although it is still considered a primary source. Look, I come to these discussions with no bias or any past or future issues with pageant coverage on Wikipedia. I do have issues with attempted incremental changes to policies and guidelines. "If" we don't like them then let's work to get them changed or try to follow them for the betterment of Wikipedia. We are not suppose to build a biography of a living person on primary sources and there should be "multiple" independent coverage. I am not against more local coverage as long as it is substantial as proof of notability. Personally, if I was closing this, and there was a parent article, I would redirect. Some closers will not !count a move for redirect and use a criteria of "Keep", "delete", redirect" or "merge", keeping them separate when making a decision. This is not entirely fair but knowing this tends to make editors !vote delete instead of redirect if they think it will be seen as a very weak keep.
 * There is some direction to redirect when possible and "Find sources" if they are available. I am alright with that but currently, according to multiple policies and guidelines, and not just a selective one or two, there is not enough references to support a stand-alone article. I didn't make "the rules", nor did I assist in forming them, but the community at large so I feel compelled to go by these unless there is a clear reason to ignore them. Even then this policy is subjected to a broad community consensus. Biographies of living persons, that includes This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. is also subjected to directives from the WMF. We have multiple policies and guidelines that must be satisfied for article inclusion, that are more stringent with BLP's, and not wikilawyering one or two as a reason to keep while excluding the others. Otr500 (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you'd noticed above but I actually voted to delete this ;) I agree with all of what you're saying.  There are some articles which did pass notability and those I was firmly in support of keeping but this doesn't pass the bar.  So I'm on your side with this one.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * REQUEST CLOSURE Someone please close this. It's been relisted once (20 days ago) and has been open for 28 days.  I think we've plumbed the depths of the discussion.  Something may have fallen through the cracks in the admin side of things...--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I concur with the Delete votes as there has also been consensus at AfDs as it is that there's no automatic inherited notability from pageants themselves, the sourcing offered here are still not actually satisfactory, and it would be a noticeably thin article still at best. The article contains nothing else aside from this said information, attempts at hopes of substantiating better are thin since they simply add sources but no actual convincing. The first AfD was quite troubled with comments as it was not clear, the second was because of massively nominating all, or else this would've in fact be deleted sooner, as that alone was also actually enough time to have convinced us otherwise. SwisterTwister   talk  19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please Do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no consensus that al lstate beauty contest winners are notable; judging by the results of discussions, I think there is for Miss America, but not for the others. We could establish such a rule, either b specifically adopting one,or my consistent decisions at AfD, but we have not yet done so. Therefore all arguments based on that line of reasoning are really saying "I think these out to be (or ought not to be) always assumed to be notable. My view is that they should not be. The GNG is sensitive to the amount of material on the subject. For a subject like this, which is extensively covered in the press, there ought to be very good sources--a borderline case in this area should be considered as not notable.  DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * DGG, you are not recognizing the argument in this specific case. This is an example that should lead to such a consensus.  This case has over 20 sources, many of which indicate coverage of her STATE title and subsequent reign before she ever got to the Miss USA Pageant.  That is WP:GNG upon which we base WP:N and all the sub articles that support various subject areas that lead to WP:N.  We assume these sources exist for all such title winners to save the need to search for them in each case as they are brought to AfD by serial nominators.  Just because many editors don't post these sources, or in the case of the sources I posted and had removed here because they give excessive detail about her reign, does not negate their existence, here or elsewhere. Trackinfo (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this is your 2nd !vote, and you've never responded to my ping after your first !vote, let's repeat that discussion to compare your two !votes, and see if we can get more of a response.
 * {| style="border:black solid 1px;font-size:95%;margin-left:10px"


 * Delete. violation of the policy NOT DIRECTORY. Winners of state0-wide beauty contests do not meet the notability standard, except for the ones that are part of Miss America. The trivial nature of the sources in this instance confirms it.  DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)```
 * I'd love to know where you made up that piece of rubbish. Nowhere here has it been affirmed that USA titleholders are any different to America titleholders.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the same kind of idea that calls the American League the "Junior Circuit" league in baseball, "It is sometimes called the Junior Circuit because it claimed Major League status for the 1901 season, 25 years after the formation of the National League (the "Senior Circuit")." Miss America dates back to 1921.  Miss USA didn't start until 1952, so the idea that Miss USA is a startup competition might well remain with people who grew up in the 60s and before, but as quoted above, Miss USA received 38 million viewers in 1979.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but didn't see anything relevant. Please clarify.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the same kind of idea that calls the American League the "Junior Circuit" league in baseball, "It is sometimes called the Junior Circuit because it claimed Major League status for the 1901 season, 25 years after the formation of the National League (the "Senior Circuit")." Miss America dates back to 1921.  Miss USA didn't start until 1952, so the idea that Miss USA is a startup competition might well remain with people who grew up in the 60s and before, but as quoted above, Miss USA received 38 million viewers in 1979.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but didn't see anything relevant. Please clarify.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * }
 * Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Duplicate vote from DGG stricken. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: that's how articles on notable pageant winners look like: Trish Regan and Jane Badler. The state level pageant win gets one line in their bios, and that's how it really should be. The article under discussion here is a WP:PSEUDO biography and should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This argument is based on a fallacy, as notable pageant winners may or may not look like the two cases of WP:OSE cited. Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the statement earlier in this AfD, "the essay about a 'pseudo' biography is an argument to redirect". WP:PSEUDO says, "If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context."  Thus your delete !vote is inconsistent with the redirect essay cited.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment In this case, the topic is more prominent in the article on Miss USA 2015 than in the Miss Kansas USA article.  The second Kansas City Star article (a newspaper based in Missouri) stated, She was the first Miss USA contestant to publicly sound off on the controversy created by pageant co-owner Trump’s comments last month referring to Mexicans as rapists and criminals. She appeared on CNN after she spoke to The Kansas City Star. Latina magazine this week spoke to all the Hispanic contestants at the pageant, including Railsback, who said: “Well, I didn’t agree with his comments. I was offended by what he said; my family, they were also offended. I definitely understand why people are reacting the way they are. What he said was very hurtful. I mean, it’s caused a lot of problems, not only for the pageant, but for people across the nation.”
 * The transcript for the CNN live on-air interview mentioned in this quote can be seen here and here. This 2nd Kansas City Star article seems to be particularly in-depth, because I cannot find on Google another reference for the quote attributed to Latina magazine.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Thank you to Cunard for researching some sources.  Unfortunately, none of the three he found impress me.
 * perfunctory coverage in a local media outlet.
 * not as local as the Shawnee Dispatch article above, but still, perfunctory coverage in a state newspaper. There's no in-depth coverage here.  There's a bunch of fun facts that's basicly an interview.
 * is not about her. It's about a group of people she belongs to, i.e. Latin  pageant contentants.
 * I short, I don't see that this meets WP:GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So following the paragraph in which I say, "This 2nd Kansas City Star article seems to be particularly in-depth...", you say, "There's no in-depth coverage here" about the exact same source. Your post identifies as a "fun fact", "She was the first Miss USA contestant to publicly sound off on the controversy created by pageant co-owner Trump’s comments last month referring to Mexicans as rapists and criminals."  Your !vote ignores WP:GNG sources such as one that was in the article at the start of the AfD,, and sources by CNNMoney and Robin Leach that have been prominent in the discussion here.  As per the guidelines identified to you when you posted at this discussion,
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"

AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive.
 * }
 * Unscintillating (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That magazine seems to be some local non-notable magazine. We don't use these sources for GNG. Quoting someone, "" --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:IRS does not state that reliable sources are defined using WP:Notability. The WP:OSE about a small town newspaper has no relationship to this city magazine.  Enye Publishing is listed at Worldcat ref, and zoominfo ref states that they have seven employees.  Do you have evidence that this publisher lacks a reputation for fact-checking?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The Kansas City Star article of "fun facts" is "in-depth" because it provides encyclopedic biographical details about her:<ol><li>She won Miss Kansas in 2014, earning $57,600 in scholarship money. It was her third pageant.</li><li>She lost Miss Kansas Teen USA twice.</li><li>She has a fraternal twin sister, Ashley. She has a brother, Jordan.</li><li>Her mother, Robin, is a second-generation Mexican American.</li><li>Her father, John, is of German descent.</li><li>She enrolled at Johnson County Community College.</li><li>Alexis Selena Railsback's namesakes are Joan Collins’ character Alexis Carrington on Dynasty and Mexican-American singer Selena.</li><li>She worked as a hostess at Carlo's Copa Room restaurant in Lenexa for up to 30 hours per week to fund her pageant expenses while she was attending school.</li></ol> The Latin Times article is about her and the other Miss USA 2015 contestants. From Notability, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I consider the nine-sentence discussion of her to be "more than a trivial mention". The Shawnee Dispatch article, while local, contains numerous encyclopedic biographical details about her. By itself, a local source wouldn't be able to establish notability, but it helps contribute to establishing notability when there are statewide (The Kansas City Star) and national (Latin Times) sources available. Cunard (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.