Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Wallace


 * 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 redirect to Miss Oregon. Spartaz Humbug! 11:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Ali Wallace

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Formula article on another Miss Oregon who should be redirected to the Miss Oregon article according to the guidelines at WP:NOPAGE. The trivia of not winning as a teen and not winning Miss America does nothing for establishing notability or the need for a standalone article. Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: While I see Legacypac's point, Ms. Wallace didn't win either pageant she was in, there are still 15 sources on the page. While there are several links to the various pageants, there are five newspaper articles and one Billboard article.  You could say Ms. Wallace is notable for losing, in this case.  I believe with the many sources that the article meets GNG and N. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 06:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was not clear. She won Miss Oregon, the article her name and basic info is best presented on is Miss Oregon.  WP:NOPAGE assumes notability, which the refs might be used to establish. Legacypac (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 09:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as a WP:GNG pass, obvious notability supported by the sources present in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the sources are about the pageant itself, providing a round up of the contestants etc. I do not consider that to be significant coverage of the individual in question. As far as the billboard article, that is about the song she apparently danced to, with absolutely no mention of her or the pageant. This article is almost the epitomy of over sourcing attempting to show notability, which if anything does the reverse...if this is the best that can be come up with it is clear to me that notability is not established. Polequant (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to be more a case of WP:ROUTINE and WP:NEXIST. The sources are your typical "our local person is participating" or the general coverage of the event from primary sources from the various years or pageant-related sources. There is nothing beyond that to denote widespread or regular coverage of the subject. I couldn't find any mention of her at all in the Billboard reference, so that doesn't do anything to establish notability of this subject. The article is well-written (again, see WP:NEXIST, but a notable subject? Doesn't appear to be so. Same for the article on her mother. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficiently sourced, and at least as notable as most of the Pokémon characters. Collect (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title; subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is a threshold, not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Each time editors have asked you to produce a policy that says a state level pageant winner is automatically notable you have not been able to do so, therefore your stock response is misleading and disruptive. It is also not enough to claim "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources" you will need to show such coverage exists.You might also wish to review the WP:NTEMP policy which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual."  Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment discussions for redirect should ideally take place on the article talk page, not AFD. clpo13(talk) 05:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 13:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete—agree with JonRidinger on the issues of WP:ROUTINE coverage being used to satisfy GNG. There is not significant coverage of Ms. Wallace separately from the pageant to demonstrate notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - good sources, notable for winning Miss Oregon. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment no one has ever been able to show a policy that says winning a state pageant confers automatic notability. Since pageants are entertainment put on by companies like Carousal Productions and the participants model eveningwear and swimsuits and perform talents, they fall under WP:NMODEL as models/entertainers which contains tests that this person completely fails. Legacypac (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Or redirect to Miss Oregon. Also, she aint no Pikachu. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Miss Oregon Unless there is something ELSE notable about her, other than winning a state level pageant, there isn't a need for a separate article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2015 (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.