Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Scott (2nd 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   keep. Nakon 00:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Caroline Scott
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article originally created by a banned SOCK. Now extra sourcing added consisting of short WP:ROUTINE mentions in a University newsletter (name and competition only as part of a list), a commercial blog (which has spammed WP extensively for links), a short blurb on an AM radio station site, a captioned photo in a series of photos for SeattlePI, and the sponsoring company's website as a mention on a list. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMODEL, WP:BIO1E. All the info that can be gathered on the subject is already in the article, most of which is already in the articles about the pageants she was in. Further, no Miss Wyoming so far has been notable enough to justify a stand alone article. There was consensus to delete this article as a batch but they were kept only on the basis that the Admin preferrred they be relisted individually. Sister articles Natasha Martinez and Elizabeth Cardillo (contestants in the same year, same pageant company) were recently in deleted separately. Legacypac (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete: the two references in the article that aren't primary do not have significant coverage of this individual. Vrac (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This article subject has achieved notability by winning pageant titles in two different years. There are a total of five references which include university, news sites and other sites that cover pageant happenings. With sources across numerous independent reliable sources this article subject passes WP:GNG     WordSeventeen (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 04:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Winnings in teen pageants should not be used to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:BIO. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Miss Wyoming USA - The correct sourcing is rather weak and the article has minimal content. In other words, notability is possible, but unproven.  However, that doesn't mean the subject can't be covered at a broader article and the current article content (4 sentences) would not be undue weight at Miss Wyoming USA.  I note also, that the two recent delete arguments are exceptionally weak (and the others preceded the current version of the article).  One is flat out wrong (she won the adult version of the pageant this year, not the teen version, and no one is arguing that is automatic notability anyway) and the other is WP:JNN. --ThaddeusB (talk)
 * Saying someone fails e.g. GNG/BIO is shorthand. Consider the link to be a transclusion of those criteria. No opposition to selective merging to the contest article, though. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone can say "keep per ABC" or "delete per DEF". As my link explains, doing so is a very weak argument because it does nothing to explain why you feel the article in question meets/doesn't meet the criteria. AfDs are not votes - achieving consensus generally needs actual discussion, which "k/d per XYZ" doesn't contribute to in any meaningful way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for me to prove a negative? Otherwise it's not a complicated thing such that it requires I write out what would effectively be a copy of the page I linked (just as you only linked -- rather than retyped -- that non-policy non-guideline userspace essay). Insufficient sources exist. Not sure why you need more. It's striking that you found it necessary to criticize other people's !votes as part of your own argument when your !vote, while using more words, barely even alludes to a policy-backed rationale. Part one: The correct sourcing is rather weak and the article has minimal content. In other words, notability is possible, but unproven. In other words, you're admitting the sourcing stinks and are not even claiming that sources exist outside of what's cited. Then in part 2 you "just say" (in the sense you have accused me of "just saying") that doesn't mean the subject can't be covered at a broader article and the current article content (4 sentences) would not be undue weight at Miss Wyoming USA. You have said the sourcing is not good but merge it anyway without giving any basis whatsoever for doing so (unless we are to assume that merge is the default, which it certainly is not). Perhaps you meant to say that sourcing is good enough to justify a merge, but that, too, is "just saying". You haven't argued your point at all, you're just saying it's good enough. Now, to be clear, I didn't take issue with this until you've targeted the integrity of my own !vote. That's because even though you haven't backed it up with anything whatsoever, I understand AfD arguments enough to know the implications of what you're arguing. Similarly, when I link to criteria and say that it does not pass, you know what that means. Assuming you're not really looking for me to prove a negative, and since you're presenting no counter-argument yourself, citing Cirt is just an empty attempt to try to discredit a !vote you disagree with on the basis of using fewer words. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for you to do anything, nor am I criticizing. I am sorry if you saw the comment that way.  I am telling you that saying "not notable" (or in your case "fails BIO") is a weak argument because it doesn't say why you feel it fails.  (Saying "keep is notable" is equally weak.) There are many possible reasons an article can fail to be notable - you should state why you think it is so in order to make your argument strong.  Saying something like "insufficient sourcing to prove notability" while barely more words is a much better argument.  An even better argument is "Current sourcing doesn't prove notability, and my searches didn't turn up anything either" is even better (if true).  As to my merge !vote, I do not have to prove notability - content inclusion is not a matter of notability, but judgement.  There is no policy to point to tell me material X is or is not appropriate in article Y.  (But if you need one, see WP:PRESERVE - content should be preserved when possible and it is possible here, even if notability is not proven for a stand-alone article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something there have been only minor changes to the article since nomination for deletion: punctuation fixes, a place of birth and a new category. I'll reiterate my Delete !vote: the secondary, independent source coverage amounts to photo captions. Vrac (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: Please, in particular dicuss the new links and whether they create notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as sufficient references from reliable third-party sources exist (,, , , , etc.) to push this article across the WP:GNG threshold. As the winner of both the Miss Wyoming Teen USA 2010 and Miss Wyoming USA 2015 titles, "one event" concerns do not apply. Nominator misrepresents the closure of his mass-deletion attempt as it was originally "keep" before he personally reverted it. - Dravecky (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I have significantly rewritten and expanded the Caroline Scott article with improved sourcing from a variety of reliable third-party and primary sources to address any concerns of verifiability or notability. I respectfully request that any interested editor review the article as it currently stands and consider revising their !vote in this discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 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.