Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LacyJane Folger


 * 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  21:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

LacyJane Folger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only with WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:31, 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 2012 by User:MissAmericaGirl 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) 11:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please excuse me asking for clarification. The nominator, in the wake of a failed bundled AfD for which much of the opposition was that it was a bundled AfD, went ahead to singly nominate those entries he nonetheless believes not to be notable, in the hope that people will be willing to advocate deletion of non-notable subjects where they're unwilling to do so with bundled AfDs on procedural grounds, right?  What about this do you believe constitutes bad faith? Addendum: I just looked back over your cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs.  You made the first one at 6:43.  The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes.  You cannot possibly be claiming to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith.  Would you care to reconsider?   Ravenswing   03:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: My own presumption of good faith would be better served if Dravecky produced the sources he claims exist. Of the four sources in the article, two are primary and promotional sources (pageant websites) which cannot support notability, one seems to be a fan page (and is a broken link in any event), and the fourth is seacoastonline.com, which appears to be an umbrella website serving several small New Hampshire and Maine weeklies, which even if it were proved to be a reliable source would run afoul of WP:GEOSCOPE.  Would Dravecky care to come up with some significant coverage in significant media outlets?   Ravenswing   18:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Merge to Miss New Hampshire USA. Notability is possible, but the current sourcing fails to prove it.  That doesn't mean Rodriguez can't be covered in a broader topic though.  About one paragraph of coverage would be appropriate at the Miss Texas page, and that is about what we have in the article. Incidentally, BLP1E does not apply as it is meant to protect individuals caught up in a news story, not prevent bios on people known primarily for one thing (which is true of most notable people).  ROUTINE is a guideline regarding event notability.  There is no consensus that it applies also to people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Switched to keep per article improvements by Dravecky --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 13:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * delete - beauty pageant titles alone are not enough notability. Deunanknute (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I have significantly expanded this article and added multiple references from reliable third-party sources today. I respectfullly request that anybody who may have previously !voted to review the article in its current state. (Automated searches may have been complicated by the media's rendering of her first name variously as "LacyJane", "Lacy Jane", "Lacey Jane", and so on.) Thank you. - Dravecky (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * still delete - the issue isn't the number of references, it's that beauty pageant titleholders are not inherently notable. Deunanknute (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Subjects that are "inherently" notable (towns, mountains, pro baseball players with a single at bat, and such) are so-called because they are presumed to be able to pass WP:GNG if only editors look hard enough. Everything else on Wikipedia (movies, companies, pageant titleholders, and such) must establish their notability by passing WP:GNG with coverage by multiple references from third-party sources. That's what I've done here. - Dravecky (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: A fair bit of work, twelve days after your vote. Okay, fair enough.  Examining the sources, though, I'm not moved to change my opinion.  Every single substantive citation comes from Foster's Daily Democrat, a local small-city paper, and the GNG requires "multiple" substantive sources.  Of the rest, the several pageant sources are of course primary and promotional.  The Portsmouth Herald article covers the "2008 Miss Hampton Beach" competition, and her short mention there is debarred by WP:ROUTINE.  The Boston Globe citation mentions Folger only in a photo caption.  The Business Insider and Las Vegas Sun cites mention the subject only in a list of odds of numerous contestants winning the Miss USA pageant.  The Wheelock College cite is a scanty press release linking to one of the Daily Democrat articles.  Should any substantive coverage arrive from a media outlet other than the Daily Democrat, I'm willing to revisit my view.   Ravenswing   07:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that this article from the Portsmouth Herald and this short article (on page 5) of Wheelock Magazine provide sufficient diversity. Also, a couple of the Foster's articles (like this one) were mirrored from a sister newspaper (The Hampton Union, part of the Seacoast Media Group) but the online edition of the Union is through a library site with occasional connectivity issues and the Foster's mirror is more easily accessible. (Addendum: WP:ROUTINE governs events, not people, so while the article might not solely prove the notability of the Miss Hampton Beach pageant itself, it can do for the person that wins it.) - Dravecky (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This article subject passes WP:GNG since it has coverage with multiple references from third-party sources. The references (17 to date) include multiple newspapers and magazines as well as a variety of other sources. The subject won pageant titles in 2008, 2009, and 2011. Notability has been achieved.    WordSeventeen (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:17, 14 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.