Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Korka


 * 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 delete. WjBscribe 00:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea Korka

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prevously prodded but prod removed. This is a copy of the comments I left on the article talk page:
 * In my opinion, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead established precedent that local titleholders who appeared on reality television were not of themselves notable unless: a) their role on the reality television show was notable (in the Whitehead case, she was the first contestant to quit the show) and b) they had held a number of local titles and competed with high results in the state pageant over the years.  I do not believe that Chelsea Korka meets either of those standards.  If she wins the show, there would be a higher claim to notability but as of now she is not notable. --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the precedent argument, remember that consensus can change.--Chaser - T 10:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per well argued nom. --Dhartung | Talk 01:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment To be fair, the precedent mentioned above was not necesarily established for the reasons given. While it may be true that Cassandra  Whitehead did win multiple pagents, the only reason the number of wins was in question was because a previous poster said that her failure to win numerous pagents did not make her notable.  The exact number of wins was not really discussed so much as what the poster percieved to be a lack of wins.  And I do not believe her finishing in the top ten, or any other near wins is relevant because if it were, then the fact that Chelsea Korka won  Miss West Broward, and has made the top three in The Search for the New Doll (in itself, a near win) would qualify her as being notable, ispo facto.


 * Furthermore, there is an article existing for Tana Goertz, who was the runner up for the third season of The Apprentice. Tana obviously did not win, nor did the article really list anything especially notable about her, though I will grant that the information on her background and other information about her is much more complete.  However, none of that made her particularly notable.  So it seems that one could argue that a precedent has been set for the notability of contestants who make it down to the final episode, or final decision, of reality TV shows.  Saiga 16:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:INN, that one article exists doesn't necessarily validate other articles. See also the more cynically titled WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Another article would be more persuasive if it had been kept at AFD.--Chaser - T 10:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Chaser makes a very valid point; however, I mentioned the article on Tana Goertz in response to the point of precedents already set. If we are going to consider precedents as a valid point (not necessarily a defining proof for preservation) for consideration, then I think the point stands.  The point wasn't that "Tana Goertz has an article, so why shouldn't Chelsea Korka," it was that "a precendent exists that an article for a final contestant from a reality TV show that is otherwise not notable exists, therefore the same arguement should be considered here."  I agree that it certainly isnt a conclusive arguement for preservation, but it is something to be weighed along with all the other agruements made.  Saiga 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I see what you are saying, and kind of agree with your logic. Korka wasn't top three when I afd-ed this.  However, the main problem is still a lack of reliable, verifiable sources.  A current Google News search comes up with zilch and an archive search comes up with one article.  I have done some work on the article, rewriting and trying to improve the sources to Wikipedia standard but there isn't much to work with. --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  22:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed.  I will try to do some research of my own, after I acquaint myself better with Wikipedia's policies, rules and guidelines (Having just signed up this morning, I know little to nothing about these, and in fact, am just learning the coding for posting as I go along).  Hopefully I can either find sources needed or new material to add with verifiable sources of its own.  Saiga 01:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep In case some is looking for it?So just keep!Oh and it just needs a severe clean-up, that's all folks!Dalmation 08:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment. If I had to take a position right now, I would probably support deletion for marginal notability and lack of secondary sources.  However, I suggest relisting this AfD for more comments and to see if she makes it to the top two.  If she makes the top two, I think she is notable enough.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete She is non-notable and does not win the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsaybabay (talk • contribs)
 * Comment  I think we should ignore the above entry (previously unsigned and then supposedly left by Lindsaybabay) as I recall it said something very different before (previously it was a vote to keep).  Someone seems to be trying to manipulate things here, plus it claims she hasn't won before the show has even aired.  Unless this show airs in Asia or Australia, which I heavily doubt, the person is just guessing.  Saiga 16:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 (T|C) 08:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless she wins (and thereby joins the band), I don't see the article as worth keeping. I understand the attraction of making a distinction between a third and second place finisher, but that distinction is still pretty arbitrary. If she wins, then she will be a member of a notable band and thereby deserving of an article. As acknowledged above, there aren't enough independent sources to otherwise establish notability.--Chaser - T 10:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment (In response to Kubigula) Although I cannot say for sure, I am doubtful that there will be a real distinction between second and third place, as the show is down to three awaiting it's final episode, and there is no hint at all that there will be more than one elimination round.  If I am correct and such is the case, then the worst she can do at this point is to tie for second.  More importantly at this point, however, is that with just a few days left until the decision is made, it would be premature to delete the article right now, because if she wins, I think the notability arguement becomes moot, as Chaser said.    Saiga 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable local teen pageant pretender (for heavens forbid if any of them are notable for so being), without prejudice to re-creation if she becomes a "doll". Ohconfucius 08:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I support the suggestion that this remains open until the final TV episode on April 24. After that we'll know where she came on the show and be able to make a better decision here. PageantUpdater  User Talk   Review me!  09:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete can always be restored if she wins. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's not much in the way of sources and the article has little content beyond that is already covered in the article about the show.  Will it matter in five years?-- Kubigula (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: The TV station that runs the show indicates on their website that another model won. I think that pretty much ends the discussion.--Chaser - T 19:14, 26 April 2007 (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.