Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Dreman


 * 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 and redirect to Miss Colorado.  MBisanz  talk 22:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Diana Dreman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Diana Dreman was Miss Colorado, but she gets very little notice for that. Just very local coverage, not enough to justify an article. Some of the coverage she gets is more novelty coverage because she is the first person whose mother was Miss America to win a state Miss America title. This is not enough to justify a free standing article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:GNG.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion was originally closed as no consensus because there is a lack of Wikipedia consensus on the matter on December 6th, after I presented some issues to the closer, and another editor argued that these should be considered on a case by case basis, the administrator who closed gave permission to reopen this discussion. I primarily state this so the time frame when this discussion has actually been open can be clearly seen. It was closed from early December 6th (about 7 GMT) to about 14 GMT on December 9th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been relisted in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions now that it has been reopened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted in the absence of other notability factors. This is the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are the citations in the article:
 * Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note User:Ejgreen77 created this article here, but had not been notified of this discussion, .  Unscintillating (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets both WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO#1 for notability.  The remedy for editors who believe that this topic fails our notability guideline is to merge the reliable material as a mini-bio to a suitable target article such as Miss Colorado.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment So you actually argue this should not remain as a stand alone article?00:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I stated that the topic meets two different criteria for notability. Unscintillating (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep has received significant coverage. SST  flyer  14:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which coverage is significant?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment all the citations are either extremely local low quality, the Las Vegas one is extremely passing, others are University press releases or other forms of sources that are not 3rd party.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as none of the sources here are actually relevant to notability itself and still nothing establishes genuine substance for an article itself, because we're not inheriting her an automatic article because of participation alone, and by that alone, we wouldn't be sensibly applying notability how it works itself. The sources are simply trivial and simply calling them "sourcing!" is not alone a basis for acceptance. SwisterTwister   talk  05:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So sources about the topic are not "relevant to notability"? Is that a contradiction in terms?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Miss Colorado I would have usually gone for a delete as the subject is not independently notable of the pageant (and about 5 years have passed since the event). But in this case I prefer a redirect. There is an incoming link at Rebecca Ann King (the subject is her daughter) and I think it is OK to keep this redirect as a navigational feature. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Weak, because there's a surprising number of incoming links to this page.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with a redirect, per Dennis Bratland -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Miss Colorado. Add a note to the list that she was the first to whose mother was a Miss America, and Miss Colorado contains everything you need about the subject. The only reason these appears to be a lot of incoming links is the two navigation templates at the bottom. There's little article content that points here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Miss Colorado. Add a note to the list that she was the first to whose mother was a Miss America - because, exactly what User:Dennis Bratland said.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge. Fails WP:BASIC as the sourcing is trivial and in my opinion reflects on the event and not Ms. Dreman. I also don't see why a redirect is required and I believe it is inappropriate in this instance. -- HighKing ++ 20:56, 26 December 2016 (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.