Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channing Pierce


 * 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. Nakon 02:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Channing Pierce

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a SOCK farm link and junk building effort. If she appeared in a movie she was not credited, or even listed as having any role I could find. She got to meet Donald Trump with 50 other girls at once in NY though. Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2010 by User:Masanook who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups this way is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though,  I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is  a substantial subsequent career).  DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: As far as Dravecky's heated Keep arguments go, I just looked back at his cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. He made the first one at 6:43.  The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes.  He cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that. Examining the article on the actual merits, the sources presented are garbage.  Two are blog sites, the third is IMDB and the fourth is the subject's Twitter feed.  The second two purportedly support the subject's appearance in a movie, but looking over the IMDB cast list, I agree with the nom that the subject isn't listed, even in the uncredited section, and I'm removing those two sources.  A Highbeam search turns up only a single hit in The Arab-American News, the sum total of which is "The Michigan representative for this year's pageant is 24year-old Channing Pierce of Royal Oak."  As I'm sure we all know, a one-sentence reference is explicitly debarred by the GNG as supportive of notability.  And that's it.  I would be very interested where these sources are that Dravecky claims support notability, because even the most casual of glances would alert all but the most inexperienced of users to their flaws.  I'm comfortable with calling his Keep vote having been made in bad faith.   Ravenswing   03:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Miss Michigan USA with no prejudice against building it into a proper article later. Subject might be notable, but the current referencing does not prove it.  That doesn't mean we can't have a paragraph about Pierce at a broader article, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've no objection to a merge to a list on that main article.   Ravenswing   22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: None of the new sources added strike me as making Pierce "obviously notable". I think merge is probably still the best option, but wouldn't object to a keep. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Dravecky "subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG"    WordSeventeen (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I have thoroughly rewritten this article, incorporating multiple reliable third-party sources (and removing some of the questionable blog sources), pushing it across the WP:GNG thresholds for verifiability and notability. - Dravecky (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:54, 19 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.