Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Brown


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Allison Brown

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A state-level pageant win is an insufficient claim to notability and significant RS coverage to meet GNG cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom; also noting that the result of the national contest did not even place her- no major competition wins. And why is that blank section there?! O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  07:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is not just a state pageant winner but also a national winner as Miss Teen USA 1986. Winners at Miss Teen USA seem to be a notable achievement.  --After Midnight 0001 12:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum AfD is not cleanup.  We already cover this topic elsewhere in the encyclopedia as shown in WP:BEFORE B5, so WP:DEL8 is out of scope.  Notability is then a content argument as to where and how we cover the topic, not if we cover the topic.  As per WP:Deletion policy, a deletion forum is not the place for content disputes, rather the discussion belongs on the talk page of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The article overwhelmingly fails the general notability guidelines, the one source is from the Miss Universe Pageant organization itself, and so can not be considered indepdent of the contestants the organization exists to promote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What is your WP:IAR argument to ignore WP:Deletion policy? Unscintillating (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason to delete this article is because the subject does not meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This response ignores WP:Deletion policy and WP:Deletion policy, so it ignores WP:Deletion policy. Further, it provides no WP:IAR reason to ignore WP:Deletion policy, which was the question, so is a non-sequitur.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How does WP:Deletion policy apply here, as well as the "content dispute"? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see my statement on this point above. The question here remains "What is your [JPL's] WP:IAR argument to ignore WP:Deletion policy?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Lack of notability is not a content issue. Neither is a lack of reliable source coverage, which deletion policy explicitly addresses. WP:ATD applies if and only if the subject is notable (and this person isn't). Even WP:ATD lists full deletion as a last resort. The only other viable option here is redirecting to pageant, but "Allison Brown" may be too common a name to be a useful search term. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Notability is not a deletion policy. Notability is a guideline that tells us if we want a topic to be a standalone article.  If the topic is not notable, and the topic is not a standalone article, notability has nothing more to say.  Specifically, it is typically non-notable topics that we merge or redirect.  Merge and redirect are content decisions and do not need admin tools.  I wrote the essay WP:INSIGNIFICANCE that collects much of the applicable text.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a contested request to remove an article from Wikipedia. Just because we didn't explore every alternative to AfD before coming here doesn't mean we shouldn't now find a consensus about what to do with this article. Outright deletion for lack of notability is a valid option. Articles about non-notable topics are deleted from Wikipedia every day, usually by PROD or speedy. Finally, writing an essay about a Wikipedia policy does not change consensus understanding of how that policy works. • Gene93k (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Whether or not "Allison Brown" is a useful search term, it can be used to create Wikilinks, just as deletion creates redlinks that damage the encyclopedia, such as in the following articles:
 * Miss Teen USA
 * Miss Teen USA 1986
 * Miss Oklahoma Teen USA
 * Miss Teen USA 1987
 * Miss South Dakota Teen USA
 * Miss USA 1987
 * Miss Universe
 * Kelly Hu
 * Christy Fichtner
 * List of Miss USA states and territories
 * What is interesting in this list is that it does not include Miss Oklahoma 1986. List of Miss USA states and territories indicates that Allison Brown was the last entrant in a 4-year experiment in which the Miss Teen USA pageant winner was entered into the Miss USA pageant.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia provides a wonderful tool called Twinkle. One of its functions is to clean up red links in the blink of an eye. • Gene93k (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of independent reliable source coverage and per my comments above. Following WP:BEFORE, I found no RS coverage in Google or HighBeam. The Miss Teen USA win is notable only if reliable sources cover it. The 1986 pageant article is completely unsourced and no RS coverage was found in an independent search. The basic question for inclusion of any subject is: do we have enough reliably-sourced information to support a useful, verifiable and balanced article without resorting to original research? We don't have that here. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not notability, and it has been this way for a long time. Notability is a guideline that does not define content, with an exception involving lists.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if verifiabilty was the key threshold, verifiability WP:V depends on independent reliable published sources. This article doesn't have any. It also is a poorly sourced BLP that is grandfathered against the WP:BLPPROD policy. Notability is the consensus guideline we use for inclusion. That's why we don't have 7 billion biographical articles or one million primary school articles. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are five names in this article, all of which have had references at some point in time, as seen in the edit history. I also reviewed your BLPPROD link.  The external link in the existing article seems to be enough to overcome BLPPROD.  Further, as per point 3 in "Deleting and undeleting", the BLPPROD fails on "there is no suitable previous version to revert to".  Further, an excellent fully-formatted source is available in this AfD.  In summary, AfD is not cleanup, and an editor would need to cite WP:IAR to use the current state of the article as an argument for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As for notability being the consensus guideline for inclusion, the words oversimplify and in doing so miss the point, because topics can be included whether or not they are standalone articles. The example you give of 7 billion people works well enough.  Those 7 billion fall into three groups: notable, significant, and insignificant (not included).  The notable ones are eligible to have articles, the significant ones are eligible for inclusion somewhere in the encyclopedia but not as standalone topics, and the insignificant topics are not included.  Both the notable people and the significant people are included.  An example of a significant biography is Jonathan Medved.  WP:V has said for years that, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability"  The words were moved to footnote #1, but they are still there.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your quote from WP:V takes that sentence out of context. WP:V is a core content policy. It is part of the statement that all mainspace content must be verifiable. It also goes on to say "this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included." WP:V says nothing about articles themselves. Again, keeping or deleting an article is covered in deletion policy, which cites notability as a guide. • Gene93k (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To your point, yes, there exists WP:V reliable information about insignificant topics. I think you are still missing my point.  Inclusion occurs at a granularity lower than standalone articles.  Again, topics can be notable, significant, or insignificant.  I suggest you look again at Jonathan Medved.  We don't currently consider this topic to be "worthy of notice".  We do consider this topic to be worthy of inclusion .  Unscintillating (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From the RS coverage found so far, the subject rates mentions in the Miss Teen USA and Miss Teen USA 1986 articles (already present). Wikipedia will suffer no great loss if the standalone article is nuked. • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we are making progress here. Regarding the statement "Wikipedia will suffer no great loss if this standalone article is nuked", do you agree that this is an IAR argument for deletion?  How do disregarding WP:Deletion policy and WP:Deletion policy improve the encyclopedia?  The later directs attention to WP:Editing policy which has the "preserve" policy.  Specifically, why is any loss at all acceptable?  Why is an IAR deletion preferable to a policy-based discussion in a proper forum regarding notability?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Jonathan Medved bio stub that you tacked onto the father's article is an example of undue weight given with sources that aren't the best. As I said above, the current subject rates mentions in the pageants she competed in. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by the statement that the New York Times and Businessweek.com are not the best, but this is missing the point, as this was provided as an example of a non-notable biography included on Wikipedia. And it is not reasonable to think that all non-notable BLPs on Wikipedia fail undue.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As for WP:DEL8, WP:DEL8 does not exist outside the context of WP:Deletion policy and WP:Deletion policy. WP:Deletion policy, including merge and redirect, are priority alternatives over WP:DEL8, as we are here to build an encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you check Google Books? I saw three good snippets there:
 * Edmond Oklahoma, Always Growing
 * Exploring Oklahoma Highways, Trip Trivia
 * Legendary Locals of Edmund
 * I clicked on the third and found a 2014 book from Arcadia Publishing:
 * Again, while on the one hand the topic has obviously attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time, it is a minor point in this case to argue that the topic is not notable, as notability is not the threshold for inclusion. Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of the three book entries: The first is a passing mention. I could not preview the second, but Worldcat only finds it in two libraries. The third is a one-paragraph entry provided by the subject, a primary source. More than nothing, but still way short of WP:BASIC. The attention of the world at large needs to be proven with non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To your last point, this idea is confusing WP:N with WP:GNG. The words I've used are from the WP:N nutshell, avoiding the specifics of WP:GNG, and the words you've used are from WP:GNG.  And I only wish that there was "proof" of WP:GNG!  Unscintillating (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:N and WP:GNG are pointers to different parts of the same guideline document. By your own admission, you are cherry picking. Also, WP:BASIC is summarizes GNG and refers to it for clarification. WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beauty pageants/archive provides a wealth of examples of what usually happens to GNG failures. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not an advanced or controversial concept that: WP:N <> WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Then we can agree that the source is "more than nothing". Unscintillating (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Then we can agree that the source is "more than nothing". Unscintillating (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Find sources template for an alternate search term:
 * Strong keep Contrary to 's comment she won the most notable Teen pageant in the country.  Obviously a standard Google search now is not going to show the breadth of coverage she received in the 1980s but a quick search of Newspapers.com shows 200 references, a scan indicates that many are significant although I no longer have a membership unfortunately.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete current content and redirect title to whichever article the subject is most prominently mentioned in. bd2412  T 15:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Not the forum to discuss guidelines. The question is are there RS independent of the subject which determine that she was/is notable. There are scores., , , , , , Though this one is very questionable, might be an avenue for further research. Her notability for that event continues to be mentioned , . Thus, she easily meets GNG. SusunW (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * These are all local publications, such as Clovis News Journal and Farmington Daily Times, offering routine coverage as in "local person wins award". I don't see this sufficient for notability under GNG. Same goes for later pubs such as The Norman Transcript. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you actually looked at them, you will note that the majority of them were issued with credit to the agency Associated Press. There were hundreds of versions printed during the period, all over the country. Furthermore, they were printed in the era of hard copy press, when it was expensive to print, not just a matter of internet glomming. Thus, weight is given to the fact that the various papers themselves gave import to print the story. We don't determine notability. Sources do. (By the by, neither "Clovis" nor "Farmington" are in Oklahoma. Nor is Salina, Kansas or Cumberland, Maryland. Clearly not local girl coverage, as you indicated above, K.e.coffman.)SusunW (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's WP:GNG wants reliable sources, and "local" has no definition there, which means that however "local" sources is defined, they are just like any other sources. Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Miss Teen USA in the absence of substantive RS coverage. The title is her principal claim to notability, but, like many notable awards, apparently hasn't proved significant enough to generate enough coverage to sustain an individual article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * the problem is there are plenty of RS but they're stuck behind the paywall of newspapers.com. The snippets that can be seen from a search indicate there's substantial coverage but without an account I can't access them to include in the article, and I've already burned through the free trials. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and then Redirect only if needed as it's clear her mere participation in a local pageant and this being the only significance is not what amounts or contributes to a convincing article and there's nothing else apart from this and nothing to suggest the importantly needed improvements hence, all in all, that's actually enough to delete. SwisterTwister   talk  04:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Local pageant''??? She won the national Miss Teen USA title. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Since it largely seems to have been overlooked, she was a national not local titleholder, as many have erroneously claimed. What are the guidelines where sources that might potentially save an article are stuck behind a paywall? See        .  All of the links I provided (& I was able to see a small part of it on the search page) appear to have been syndicated from Associated Press.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:PAYWALL. Being behind a paywall is not a reason to reject reliable sources. However you do need to have actually read them if you are adding material cited to them. Without being able to read the sources other than snippets, it may not necessarily be able to determine in what context they were used etc, were they indepth or routine coverage and so on. If you can get someone to look at them (theres a link for help in WP:PAYWALL) and verify what they contain, that would help. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Googling "Allison Brown teen usa" brings up a plethora of entries to the effect "...Miss Teen USA, Alison Brown...". So I'm convinced that she indeed was Miss Teen USA and there are sufficient refs to prove this. Being Miss Teen USA is a big deal so that tilts the case in her favor. Is there enough material to generate an article (of a paragraph or two, at least)? Based on the arguments and material presented above, there seems to be. So no reason to delete. Herostratus (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not only because she meets WP:GNG, but also because the nomination statement, as well as many of the "delete" votes are factually inaccurate. This is not a "state-level" or (laughably!) "local pageant" winner; Allison Brown won the national-level Miss Teen USA title in 1986. This article is a prime example of a poorly written article on a notable person (which really shouldn't be all that surprising, as everything she is notable for happened in the pre-Internet era), and, as we all know, Deletion is not cleanup. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2017 (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.