Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherise Haugen


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Cherise Haugen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

So she fails WP:ACTOR There is also no evidence she is or was a model apart from winning one pagaent so she fails WP:NMODEL by a long shot. That makes her a low profile private individual who won a contest for high school girls one day (WP:ONEEVENT). Generally when people don't pass notability guidelines for either profession they are claimed to be notable for we delete the page. Leave her name on the page about the event per WP:NOPAGE and stop hosting a Wikipedia article about a non-notable private person. Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:IDONTLIKEIT is leaking (see also Articles for deletion/Miss Alabama Teen USA. I'm going to borrow User:Ejgreen77's argument from Articles for deletion/Allison Brown:  "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" ---PageantUpdater (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So what. There is a winner every year in a bunch of pageants. If the winner is lucky they get a little bio in their hometown press and their name and state mentioned a few places. They usually go on to lead perfectly non-Wiki notable private lives. As a developer I've bad far more press and won more awards over many years than nearly every pageant winner but I would never dream anyone should create a wikipedia article on me. I'm not notable - but I'm a lot better known than this subject. Legacypac (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: as per PageantUpdater. Additionally, unless the argument is that she was not Miss Teen USA, then she remains notable as such. Lastly, Legacypac's attempt at flippant sarcasm fucked his opinion pretty hard. Acting like a harsh douche-canoe isn't going to get your argument any traction. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Best to strike that harsh personal attack. Nowhere on Wikipedia is there a policy that any pageant winner is autonotable. There is NO evidence subject passes GNG. We regularly speedy CEOs, actors and artists with substantially more RS coverage then this subject.Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I cannot see any WP:BIO policy that makes a winner of "Miss Teen USA" notable (see WP:NMODEL).  More broadly, I don't see that winning a national pageant (note: not international, or even national followed by going on to international) and then doing practically nothing else of note makes one notable.  It's effectively WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * She received press coverage for over a year about her activities (sources have been added to the article). Lonehexagon (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject won a single beauty pageant 30 years ago, which is, as Black Kite says, effectively WP:BLP1E. And "national-level" or no, it's not even a particularly big beauty pageant, either, as these things go. --Calton | Talk 01:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). Additionally, Miss Teen USA is a significant pageant. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Black Kite.--Rpclod (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect  No significant coverage of subject in reliable sources. All of the articles are pretty much of the 'local girl does good' type and do not provide detailed or significant coverage. Fails GNG. Winning Miss Teen USA does not convey notability itself and her single acting credit it just that, a line on IMDB that is, at best, sourced to a line on a DVD cover. No RS found her acting career significant enough to even remark on. Fails NENT on both counts. Jbh  Talk  02:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Last edited: Added redirect option. This seems to be how some other winners were addressed 04:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per General Notability Guidelines: WP:ANYBIO
 * "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." Miss Teen USA is a notable award; thus all winners are notable, no matter what they achieved or did not achieve after receiving the title. Right now the Miss Teen USA page is a comprehensive and useful article, with each winner having a page of their own so a reader can learn something about them.  No reason to start having incomplete redlinks mixed in with the blue. ABF99 (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So ... I live in a country and that country is notable, thus I am notable no matter what I achieve?  Usually a false syllogism is drawn from at least two premises, but you manage to do it with only one.  Very impressive.--Rpclod (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your country is not a significant award or honor. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. The argument is trying to enable one to "inherit" notability, which Wikipedia rules clearly prohibit.  Even if award is notable, winning it is not inherently notable.--Rpclod (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * According to WP:ANYBIO, a person is notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." It matters quite a bit whether the award is significant. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Several of the blue links are redirects. Also see WP:NOPAGE Legacypac (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Of all the arguments to keep an article I have seen on Wikipedia 'the red links mess up the aesthetics of the article', is not one I have ever seen put forward seriously in an AfD. If the individual winners are not notable on their own then delete them too. The assertion that winners are notable for being winners is not backed up by guideline nor does it clear BLP1E. Jbh  Talk  13:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:SINGLEEVENT as a teenager, fails WP:Notability (people) Atsme 📞📧 11:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * keep - Whether we like it or not Miss Teen USA is an notable top pageant. Those stating Delete seems to use a IDONTLIKEIT rationale, Whether we like it or not winning a top pageant is notable. BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that I used a IDONTLIKEIT rationale?--Rpclod (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is the policy that winning ANY pageant makes a person notable? WP:NMODEL says otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect - This should at least be a blue link with or without an article. I guess "delete & redirect" would be OK, but there's nothing remotely contentious about the article as it stands; I see no harm in preserving the history. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, as well as keep all the articles in Category:Miss Teen USA winners (repeating what I said at the Janel Bishop AfD). Beauty contests at all levels and ages are a popular pastime in female America. Wikipedia has an excruciating amount of detail on popular content topics of interest to men and boys. A single appearance in a major league game is enough for an article, though the person may do nothing of notice ever after. We need to stop trying to reduce the amount of female popular interest topics here. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do see your point but, since it is not possible to write a good NPOV article based on a few press clippings which are inherently skewed to happy/fluffy/local does good or some bare sports scores, we should get rid of the unreasonably low notability criteria that sports (and roads and trains and air etc) have. We should not open up another low notability carve out. GNG is, and should be, the floor. Subject specific criteria were first a list of criteria which would tend to indicate that sources should exist to satisfy GNG. When it is demonstrably the case that such sources are unlikely, or simply not, exist we should not have an article. Jbh  Talk  02:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , the article has been here since 2007. This is not newly opening up another low notability thing. Let's get rid of the male-oriented stuff down to 2008 before getting rid of female coverage from 2007. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly will not and would not seek out this type of article to nominate but I also can not !vote to keep an article I fundamentally feel does not meet GNG. Externalities, such as subject gender, are reasonable to consider when deciding what kind of articles to write and which ones to commit extraordinary resources or effort to identify esoteric sources to demonstrate GNG. They are not, in my view, reasonable to consider at AfD. An article can be shown to meet the notability guidelines or not. Anything else harms the integrity of the deletion process and could, in the case of a BLP, cause harm by giving a private person an internet footprint they have no control over. I like hunting up sources and you are always welcome to ask me to help identify some to help save an article. Jbh  Talk  03:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep She won Miss Teen USA, which is notable in and of itself. WP:ANYBIO says a person is notable if they have received a "well-known and significant award or honor." Her win was widely written about in newspapers at the time. She was the first Miss Teen Illinois to win Miss Teen USA. She was honored by the State of Illinois and her biography was presented to the General Assembly, which is significant in-depth coverage. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I contest that Miss Teen USA is a significant award/honor as intended by ANYBIO. If, as has been suggested, we use NSPORTS as an analogy this is similar to the type of coverage anticipated by YOUNGATH ie routine, local coverage. At the best it might be possible to draw an analogy between winning a gold at the Junior Olympics and I really hope no-one starts going down that list and indiscriminately writing articles based on local coverage. Even in our most ridiculously lax subject area the winners of teen competitions are not notable in and of themselves until you get to world champions and records. Jbh  Talk  04:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How many teen pageants are more notable than Miss Teen USA? It's one of the main teen pageants, if not THE teen pageant. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No matter the notability of the pageant - in my analogy I already conceded it is a top-tier teen event - this subject does not have enough significant coverage to write a balanced article. It is based on local news clippings that have no in depth coverage. If fact this fails the content guidelines on many levels, it is a WP:BLP1E - the subject is a private person but for this single event for which she received coverage; it fails WP:GNG there is no significant coverage on which to base an article and, based on the information at hand there is unlikely to ever be (this is the big one. GNG is the bar. Everything else, including ANYBIO, is simply a guide to who probably will have enough coverage to pass GNG. This subject demonstrably does not.) ; She does not meet the specific criteria for models and actors WP:ENT so, per my last, there is not even the assumption of sources to fall back on. Miss Teen USA simply does not reach the bar ANYBIO sets with its examples. In the context implied by "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" and an entry in Dictionary of National Biography along with an OBE not, in itself, being considered significant  Miss Teen USA simply does not rate. Yes I am using analogies but we have no specific guidance for pageant winners so using analogies, and WP:GNG is what there is to work with.  Jbh  Talk  05:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are wrong Jbhunley, per WP:NEXIST.BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe this contest is not important to you, Jbhunley, but it is extremely significant in the pageant world. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What sources? There is no evidence that other sources exist. NEXIST says that sources need not be in the article for it to pass GNG but there must be some evidence that they are out there. Subject specific notability criteria are what we use to establish that there is a reasonable possiblity sources exist. This subject fails the specific criteria for models and actors so there is no basis on which to support an NEXIST arguement. Beyond that the coverage we do have is local, routine and relates solely to that single event. One is a passing mention . One is a self promo site . Most of the others were written during two weeks in April 1984. There is absolutely nothing after a single routine promo blurb that she would be crowning the next Miss Teen USA @Lonehexagon - Whether the pageant is important to me or to the pageant world is completely irrelevant when examining whether coverage meets our inclusion criteria. As things stand it is my very strong opinion that this article does not nor has anyone addressed the single, key point of my objection - Where are the sources showing significant coverage of this person? Jbh  Talk  17:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's an example by the State of Illinois: Lonehexagon (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Added sources to the article. She was the first Miss Teen Illinois to win Miss Teen USA. She was honored by the State of Illinois and her biography and win were presented to the General Assembly, which is significant in-depth coverage. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The enacademic site is derived from Wikipedia so can not be used as a source in Wikipedia. The General Assembly source is interesting. I am not sure how to rate it. My instinct is to treat is like a primary source similar to a court document - there are none of the editorial controls we require of reliable sources. I suppose it would depend on its legislative history. Such things can range from an acclamation sponsored by many to something inserted into the record by a single Assemblyman based on a pro-forma unanimous consent. Considering that there is no press coverage of the acclamation and being familiar with legislators habit of inserting things like it into the record based on constituent request, I think it more likely the later. Do you have anything other than the snippet view? Jbh  Talk  18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Last edited: Source removed by edit conflict. 18:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, realized about enacademic. I don't have access to that. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The State legislature presentation does little to establish notability. First time I've ever seen such an honor even mentioned on Wikipedia in a bio, but getting that treatment involves asking your state rep for it. The notability of the many people so honored varies widely. Since she was still a high school student, the presented bio must have been pretty short. Does little to nothing to show notBility. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, as strange as it sounds I just do not think legislative recognition, without reliable source coverage of that recognition, counts towards GNG. I do not even think it counts as a third party WP:RS - that is where the legislative history comes in - Is it a based on constituent request or initiated by an independent third party specifically for her; Is it part of a regular process of the legislature to recognize teens ie were 50 similar recognition passed at the same time in a pro-forma manner; Is it based on aggregate accomplishment that might point us to other notable achievements that could overcome BLP1E, etc. If you like we can check with the reliable sources noticeboard to get a broader opinion. Jbh  Talk  18:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This "honored by the State of Illinois" thing keeps coming up. Let's kill that right now.  Anyone can get one of these as long as it's not likely to backfire on your local state representative.  The current 100th Illinois General Assembly has issued 256 resolutions of congratulations since January 2017, and we're only 60% into the term.  Here are some of the people in 2017–2018 who have received the sort of "significant in-depth coverage" that Cherise Haugen was "honored" with in 1984:
 * 100 HR 0017: "congratulate the Rochester High School varsity football team, the Rockets, on winning the 2016 Illinois High School Association (IHSA) Class 4A State Football Championship". Rochester High School (Illinois) has an article; neither its football team generally, nor its 2016 team specifically, are separately notable.
 * 100 HR 0036: "congratulate Chief Ron Young of the Kankakee Fire Department, on his retirement from his lifelong service and dedication to the people of the Kankakee community". Neither Young nor the Kankakee Fire Department are likely to meet Wikipedia notability.
 * 100 HR 0097: "WHEREAS, The highlight of the festivities is the prognostication, which will begin on February 2, 2017 with early-morning music at 6:45 AM at the park in the Woodstock Square and feature an appearance by Woodstock Willie at 7:00 AM when he will look for his shadow and predict the end of winter; therefore, be it RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDREDTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we congratulate the City of Woodstock and thank the volunteers who help celebrate "Groundhog Day" every February"
 * 100 HR 0177: "congratulate Bruce Morgenstern on being a champion for Illinois wine"
 * 100 HR 0459: "congratulate Harold Katz on his bar mitzvah and we wish him and his family all the best during the momentous occasion"; to be fair, Katz's bar mitzvah was delayed 76 years, in part by the Holocaust, but he's still not notable
 * 100 HR 0495: "congratulate Mira Dedhia of Western Springs on finishing 3rd in the 2017 National Spelling Bee"
 * 100 HR 0502: "congratulate Romona Johnson of Park Forest on winning The Price is Right": Be sure to check out the in-depth coverage that is provided by these resolutions, such as how the prizes included the "Breville BBM800XL Custom Loaf Bread Maker".
 * 100 HR 0640: "congratulate Susan Hoch on receiving the 2017 Best School Blood Drive Coordinator Award on behalf of the Illinois Coalition of Community Blood Centers"
 * 100 HR 0743: "congratulate the Rochester High School football team, the Rockets, on winning the 2017 Illinois High School Association Class 4A State Championship". Deja vu, anybody?
 * The General Assembly "recognized" that all these were so notable and significant and worthy of honor that they passed nearly all of them while the State of Illinois had no budget for 2 years and non-profits and university departments were shutting down from lack of cash. And, by the way, there is no evidence that any of these ceremonial resolutions are ever fact-checked. --Closeapple (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank-you User:Closeapple for the entertaining read. I could not even find a list of honorees with my searching so kudoos for sluthing this out. Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Those examples include trivial mentions, unlike the coverage of Haugen which was significant. Additionally, her notability is based on Wikipedia's guidelines, not whether other people who've been honored by the Illinois State legislature have a Wikipedia page. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. If being Miss Teen USA doesn't qualify her for notability according to the guidelines, then maybe the guidelines should be updated. Don't millions of people watch these competitions every year? --MopTop (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not since the pageant went of TV 11 years ago. Being watched by one creep does not assure notability either Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The title is one event, and nothing else adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment From what I see above the question hinges on two points. The first is whether winning Miss Teen USA is a "well-known and significant award or honor" as envisaged by WP:ANYBIO. Is anyone aware of any guidelines or an established AfD consensus which comment on this? If it is then we have a presumption of notability. If it is not then there are no notability criteria from which to argue for inclusion. The second question is if there is a presumption of notability. Wikipedia requires that notability have verifiable evidence. That means that the presumption of notability can be rebutted if there are insufficient actual sources. Specifically WP:NRV requires "[t]he evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". The delete arguments here take the position that Miss Teen USA is not the type of thing envisioned by ANYBIO while the keep argument is that it is. Unless there is some prior guidance or consensus to draw on this part of the discussion is pretty much a push which brings us to the sourcing. Again, the delete argument is that the sourcing presented fails WP:NRV on at least two fronts; it was not significant coverage rather it was local, routine coverage similar to the coverage received in any other 'local teen does good' story like wining a National Merit Scholarship, an award from a social organization like the Rotary, Red Cross etc or a national level teen sporting event like the Junior Olympics. None of which are considered significant coverage for notability purposes. Secondly most of those arguing for deletion say the existing coverage is 'mere short term interrest' ie WP:BLP1E. I would be interested in hearing arguments on the sufficiency of sourcing and the applicability of BLP1E from those who wish to keep the article since none of the keep arguments have addressed those issues. (Note: I have added the option to redirect to my !vote above since that seems to be how some of the other winners are handled.) Jbh  Talk  04:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * According to WP:ANYBIO, "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" including "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." So one of the main questions is whether Miss Teen USA is a well-known and significant award or honor. Lonehexagon (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Those !voting delete are mistaken per WP:NEXIST. People are misreading the relevance of references here.BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I read NEXIST it requires that adequate sourcing exist not that it be in the article this is true but I do not how simply asserting it addresses the concerns I raised. The argument I and others have been making is that adequate sourcing does not exist. The relevant part of NEXIST is . This article has been around since 2007 without better sourcing. The second concern, noted above, is that the sources that do exist are both not significant coverage ie routine, local coverage and relate to a single, limited event. Is your argument that the coverage is sufficient enough, as it stands, to pass GNG? Or, is it that Winning Miss Teen USA means GNG does not apply? If the later what guideline or prior consensus is that contention based on? I am not trying to be a jerk here, I am trying to understand what the policy based rational is for keeping this article. I am always open to changing my !vote. I am not one of those editors who sticks to a position regardless of new information - not even on articles I nominate for AfD, as my record clearly shows. All I am asking for is the same thing the closer should be looking for - a policy based reason to keep. For instance why does BLP1E not apply? What consensus supports Miss Teen USA being applicable to ANYBIO? Is anyone claiming that the sourcing that does exist passes the requirements of GNG? If not, how does NEXIST apply when the article has been around for 11 years but still is poorly sourced? I do not think these are unreasonable questions to be asked in an AfD. Jbh  Talk  20:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Found more newspaper sources Burlington Hawk Eye, Daily Herald Suburban Chicago, and many more if you search through newspaper archives. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * These are all coverage of the same competition. There is nothing notable here.--Rpclod (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The norms for single event (even with lots of publicity)...such as teenage beauty contests, or National Spelling Bee winner, or national science fair winners, etc. (high school age) are not included - it's a one-time event. Atsme 📞📧 21:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hunting down a hundred or thousand old newspaper clippings that all say "Name from City in State won Miss Teen USA Year which happened in City" plus a couple pieces if trivia about the teenaher, does not equal significant coverage. No one has written a biographical book or done an indepth TV or magazine interview with the winner. There is no critical discussion of how the winner changed society or history or how we see the world or did anything significant. Except for the last minute of the event, the winner is just one of the many participants (no "significant role" as required by WP:ENT After the event the winner might do a few appearances at local events and then comes to the pageant next year to hand off the crown (not a very significant role either in that event). Some winners go on to careers of wikipedia note in entertainment or other areas amd then pass GNG but not in this case. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Added newspaper sources covering the year after the event: She received in-depth coverage about what she did during her year-long reign. Here are sources discussing her activities from 1984-1985. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete -- there's no consensus currently that winning Miss Teen USA 1984 satisfies WP:ANYBIO. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV not found; what's available is in passing and / or routine, as in: Local resident does good. Separately, Category:Miss Teen USA winners contains names that are notable for other things, such as Shelley Hennig (actress) and Vanessa Lachey (model & TV personality). This is not the case with the present article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's important to judge each article individually against the guidelines, not compare them to other articles to determine notability. Haugen did receive in-depth coverage about what she did during her year-long reign. A person can be notable even if they are local as long as they receive significant in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources such as newspapers. Per WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Here are sources discussing her activities from 1984-1985.  Lonehexagon (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I can see the arguement that the follow-up interview could be considered significant coverage. I routinely take the position that it takes more but I tend to the higher end of the distribution of what editors want to see in GNG. Setting aside for the moment our differing views on 'significant', how would you address the issue of the pageant win essentially being a single event and WP:BLP1E's bearing on the article? Jbh  Talk  15:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Because she continued to receive coverage outside of just participating in the event (as demonstrated by the coverage a year later). WP:SINGLEEVENT applies "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." However, in this case, reliable sources are covering what she's done in the year after her win. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What she did after she passed the crown to someone else, or during the year she was Miss Teen USA? Stuff that's about what Miss Teen USA does during the term she won might have more to do with typical Miss Teen USA behavior than it does with an individual contestant. --Closeapple (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on the guidelines, not what is considered "typical Miss Teen USA behavior." Lonehexagon (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: In view of the wide press coverage, this is clearly a keep, whatever opinions have been expressed on Miss Teen USA.--Ipigott (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Above, there were questions whether The Illinois State legislature's award and presentation count as a source to establish notability. WP:SOURCE says: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is 'made available to the public in some form'." It establishes: "This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see." A document published by the Illinois State legislature with significant coverage of Haugen falls under that definition. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Major pageant winner. --After Midnight 0001 21:18, 15 February 2018 (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.