Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LacyJane Folger (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

LacyJane Folger
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Folger is just plain not notable. She was Miss New Hampshire USA, which is not a title that gives default notability. THere is not widespread coverage in reliable sources. In the previous deletion discussion people were persuaded to keep the aritcle because of multiple articles in an extremely local paper, or mention in a paper published by Wheaton College. College papers do not add to confering notability on school alumni. Local human interest stories do not add up to notability. My futher search revealed that she got married last year, and that one can find mention of this in commercial wedding listings, not at all a show of notability. There has been a major discussion on the notability of beauty pageant winners since this was last nominated, and the consensus has been that people with the level of sourcing as we see here with FOlger are just plain not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – I restored the article from a redirect on 13 August 2017‎, simply because consensus at the previous AfD discussion was for the article to be retained, not redirected. Prior to this recent restoration, it was redirected to Miss New Hampshire USA. North America1000 03:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Not widespread but sufficient coverage. Meets WP:GNG. Kudos to North America for checking and executing community decisions. gidonb (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment John Pack Lambert, can you explain why you have removed all text from the article prior to this nomination? gidonb (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And why did you remove this wiki to the article from, perhaps, its most relevant location? gidonb (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * John Pack Lambert, and where do we find the community decision to delete this referenced article or even as little as just a warning that the article may be deleted one day in the future? gidonb (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What leads you to think we need to secure permission in advance before executing a redirect of a NN subject, generally? You're certainly entitled to object, but he broke no rules to do so.   Ravenswing   04:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ravenswing! At least in one of these cases there was a community decision that the article was notable. In the other case -and these are just relevant examples of a trend- there was a decision that there should be a discussion first. So yes, we are potentially speaking vandalism here and the gradual dismantling of notability, only then starting the discussions, after for example removing core links or being caught red-handed obstructing our community decisions. More generally, John Pack Lambert has been a consistent voice against notability of pageants, which is of course OK per se. Many of his AfDs in this matter have failed. He has been restricted by our community in the number of AfDs he's entitled to submit, because the amount and frequency obstructed the encyclopedic work. Hence it is not the case that he is operating here in the center of the WP consensus. Under these conditions he should have taken much better care but keeps deleting and gradually undermining these articles circumferencing community consensus anyway. I don't believe in spite keep but think that people entering this discussion should know that several matters here contradicted the rules and may impact the fair chances of referenced articles to survive beyond what we see when clicking on links, reading an intro, or even the community decisions that roll out! gidonb (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of my nominations to delete articles on pageant participants have succeeded, because pageant participants at the state level are just not notable for that. What you are voting for is in fact a spite keep, and both of you are engaging in ahistorical analysis of what community consensus actually is. The clear decssions of the discussion last fall was that articles like this should be deleted or redirected, and I only ever attempts to redirect this article (which I did last fall) after multiple other editors said I should take that course instead of overwhelming the AfD discussions with formulaic nominations that would end with that result anyway. The whole history of beauty pageant contestant debates shows a few hard headed people ignoring even the most basic rules on what passes or does not pass the general notability guidelines to push articles on people with no notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Really??? I support spite keep? I'll refer you to Articles for deletion/Monica de Bruyn (2), once a beginning author who created an article (or someone who knew her did) on 2 Wikipedias at the very least. Then wanted these removed again and people got understandably upset. One day she wants it, the other she doesn't, they were not going to listen to all that. And kept the article. I said that this is the wrong approach because she wasn't notable (at least at the time) by WP standards and she never was until then. So I nominated the article and erased our spite keep that originated for some part at another WP where I believe she had also threatened with lawsuits if the article wouldn't be removed, maybe she did here as well (alluded to here). However, all that was irrelevant to notability. More importantly, whatever community decision would have been made, it was a proper procedure and would carry validity.
 * Here things are quite different. You erased not only the entire article but also links to this article before AfDing it. So once you open an AfD and people are really impressed by your opening statement and you added find sources on LacyJane Folger (whether automatically or manually) in this very procedure you are scamming the WP community. Twice really. Once by creating a false impression that there are very few links to this article and, if they care to click on the New Hampshire pageant article, very few misses have an article (however you removed these articles and/or their links).
 * The other time you are scamming the community by practically saying it doesn't mean sh*t what people think, or say, or decide, you alone have the fullest right to later undo it. Now look back and check that I asked you an open question. Why did you remove the text? I did not say you did wrong, you could have answered right away and have said I made a mistake or I have made mistakes for years and see how wrong I was. I wish you had. But after several days in which you are active on WP you decided to finally answer and claim that the educated opinions of Ejgreen77, Dravecky, and ThaddeusB do not mean a thing and you and only you will decide that the well-referenced and invested work of MissAmericaGirl, PageantUpdater, MissPageantNews, Materialscientist, MZMcBride, Waacstats, Ravenswing, Niceguyedc, Nakon, TiMike, Namiba, Northamerica1000, and many other great Wikipedians should be removed.
 * Now this isn't the only case in which you decided single handedly that referenced articles should be erased by you as part of your crusade against pageants. But it was the boldest one that I encountered. In another case that I just rolled back you quietly erased the work of some of the same people and After Midnight, Ekaterina tony, Garion96, David Gerard, Aitias, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Stephen, Xeno, CutOffTies, Strikehold, WOSlinker, Corlier who all worked hard to make this a successful WP article, some by writing extensively, others just by adding or removing a category, fighting vandalism, etc. We are a community, work together, and you do not decide for this community which knowledge is worthwhile to keep. Especially after you have been restricted because of your behavior in this field. gidonb (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is total nonsense that business people who create notable companies often don't get pages, solders that recieved almost top honors and maybe gave their life for their country don't get pages, actresses that have multiple but not staring roles don't get pages, academics and authors have a high threshhold of notability and yet in some twisted world a girl that won a good looks contest in a very small state and then went about her life again gets a detailed page. Community consensus has been that state winners DON'T get pages unless they are actually notable under some other area. Their name on a list of annual winners is sufficent. See WP:NOPAGE for additional rational. I'm significantly more notable, locally famous, and have accomplished far more notable and lasting things then winning a contest and I would never suggest I should have a wikipedia page. This pageant stuff is just fancrut. Legacypac (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom and per my extensive debunking of the sources in the 2015 AfD (I note that no sources have been added since, so I'll let that one stand). That being said, as far as Legacypac's screed goes, c'mon.  It is news to none of us that the fundamental base of notability on Wikipedia is not how worthy or important your work/life is (at least, in the eyes of your proponents), but whether or not the world has heard of you.  However outrageous you find the premise, your average 1st round NFL draft pick has more press coverage than every Nobel Prize winner of the last year combined, and the likes of a Kim Kardashian increases that gap twentyfold.  Bemoaning the priorities of our culture is editorializing that has little place here.   Ravenswing   09:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Pageants are such a nothing event now Miss Canada was cancelled. Apparently it was restarted but even though I consume a lot of news, I only realized it from Wikipedia. So ya, in Canada no one cares about pageant queens. Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The references are mostly from local newspapers and pageant blurbs. And a photo in an article not about her. Fails GNG and BIO. Miss New Hampshire USA should not be confused with the better known Miss New Hampshire. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Miss USA pageant started in 1952 so it might be the lesser light but is mostly on a par with Miss America. See the AfD for Alexis Railsback.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Refer to ANI JPL attempted to redirect the article, and because he/she couldn't get his/her way is trying to get this article deleted.  He/she has been repeatedly brought to ANI for behavioral issues related to AfD nominations.  He/she has also been repeatedly reminded that deletion nominations for notability are not arguments for deletion if they ignore the alternatives to deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: In your sinister scenario, perhaps you've overlooked the plainly obvious fact that several other editors, so far, likewise believe the subject is not notable.   Ravenswing   06:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the procedure is seriously flawed. If you compare it to the facts in the article, in the former links, and where this AfD came from, the opening statement is so detached from reality that most people are just going to leave this page alone in disbelieve or talk about the form. About everything that JPL writes on this page is completely untrue. On top of that he also communicates that it doesn't matter that people say an article is notable, meets the GNG, WP:BIO, sources are daily newspapers from shore to almost the other shore, by journalists who take pride in their work and sign with their very own names, in two languages, multimedia, over a span of 10 years, much of the coverage WP:INDEPTH, he can then still go and delete it all regardless of community decisions. Why would one even bother? gidonb (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, let's look at this, then. It's not just that JPL is saying that this article isn't notable, doesn't meet the GNG or WP:BIO, or that the sources are inadequate to support notability. Every other editor commenting here -- except for you -- says exactly the same things. You've commented at great length as to why you believe you're right and everyone else is wrong, but the simple fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is governed by consensus; the nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes consensus goes against you, at which point your only option is to lose gracefully and move on.  The consensus is that state-level beauty pageant winners are not presumptively notable, and neither demonizing nor discrediting JPL will budge that consensus.  It's time to move on.   Ravenswing   12:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

pageants are essentially modeling contests. The subject is only (barely) known for her pageant participation and massively fails WP:NMODEL. Legacypac (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Warning User:Gidonb has just massively ping canvased a lot of selected editors. If this page is not deleted I will take this behavior to ANi and seek the overturn of the result and sanctions against the canvessor. Legacypac (talk)
 * Hehehe, I canvassed none of the people here or anywhere. Names were very relevant to the point I was making about the work people put into such a page. However, maybe others were canvassed? It is largely the same people attacking this subject matter on WP together. I don't do threats. Don't believe in it. It creates unnecessary stress for a closing person. Also, it should be clear to anyone that there is a huge disconnect between the quality and range of sources and opinions of pro-deletion opinions. That isn't new. In one of the previous discussions someone says just bring me one WP:INDEPTH source and I'll change my mind, Several are brought, by now a huge array of excellent sources. People don't follow suit. Claim nothing has changed. Can't convince those who came in already convinced. But sometimes what should be clear isn't clear. People come in with all sort of views. Actually look at the article and its strong sourcing. Or not. Have seen it all. gidonb (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Most of the publications I've heard of only contain passing mentions, but no indepth coverage. As it is, the only publication that has any real coverage is Foster's Daily Democrat.  This limited regional coverage does not satisfy WP:AUD.  For the purposes of an encyclopedia, when someone is only known for winning a single arguably notable state pageant and automatically advancing to the next level, but for virtually nothing else, it's much more efficient and scalable to simply have the person listed as one of the winners or participants (at the next level), accompanied by a single source where interested readers can access the limited available biographical info. Had she done anything else out of the ordinary, additional info would be appropriate. In the 65 years of the Miss USA Pageant, if every state winner who participated was automatically considered notable, we'd have an additional 3,185 (65 x 49 states) articles on the site.  BTW - I also went through the sources and marked a couple that were dead links. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  20:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, very local coverage only, "hometown girl makes good" sort of stuff. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 22 August 2017 (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.