Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen


 * 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

excessive detail for minor sub-pageant  DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding Teen for previous deletion.PRehse (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete lots of FanCruft on this page. I issued a challenge to source the material or I'd delete it knowing that the businesses that run these beauty contests don't even bother keeping all this data on their own websites and the websites that do track some of this trivia are unreliable blogs and/or editable by anyone. Very few creditable reliable sources care anything about which pretty high school student from whatever town won a one day song or dance contest before going back to cheerleading and math class never to he heard from again. All the participants fail WP:NMODAL and yet the pageant fans treated these minor contests like they really matter and every contestant needs coverage on Wikipedia. Pageants are just a business. We Speedy pages as SPAM on MUCH more notable businesses everyday.  Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The gist of the AFD linked above was that it was too early to have state-level pages for that contest (hence the creation of one article for all states) but that time has long since passed. There are enough sources here for the article to pass WP:GNG.  The more appropriate AFD to reference is Articles for deletion/Miss Ohio Teen USA which passed as keep in 2016 and also Articles for deletion/Miss Rhode Island Teen USA.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Miss Alabama Teen USA exists this is about Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen - the referenced AfD is the most relevant.PRehse (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The arguments for & against deleting this article are no different to the Ohio one regardless of pageant system.  The Ohio one was referenced at a similar level to this one when it went up for AFD and was kept.  If you look at the original "test case" I suppose you could call it for this, the pageant had only been around a year or two and had no yet attained the level of individual state notability it has now.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * State level events are not notable, best to build a national article out properly. Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well those two AFDs for a similar state pageant would beg to differ with you. I understand you have a subject bias but making blanket claims without considering the current level of sourcing is unfair. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 08:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:SPINOUT. If there is concern that the Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants article should not exist, then let that page be nominated for deletion.  But given that the article does exist, and given further that it reached a "keep" decision when nominated in 2015, it is now time to face the fact that it is becoming too large for a single article.  Spinning out separate articles for separate sub-topics is appropriate, and using "by state" as the criterion is a reasonable way to do it.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * spinning out separatearticles for subtopicsisappropriate only if the subtopicsare themselves notable, or, in special cases, the article wowuld otherwise be too long. Neither is the case here. The existence of agneral article does not imply thateverything mentioned in it is notable.  DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no disagreement about the policy -- the disagreement appears to be whether the parent article is large enough for a spin-out. I think it is.  The spun-out article under discussion here has about 25 references, roughly about two per year covered by the table.  If this good level of sourcing were to be applied to all 51 tables in the parent article, that would mean more than 1,000 footnotes.  Is that not too large?  And even if we were to make good use of multiple-use references, the number of footnotes would still be increasing by more than 50 per year.  So if the parent article is not too large right now, it certainly will become so in the near future.  Why wait?  Right now, we have an editor who is interested in doing the spin-outs and is also willing to beef up the sourcing at the same time (and doing a good job of it, too).  Instead of discouraging them from doing this work, let's wish them Godspeed and let them get on with it.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not in any way a major or significant competition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - small pageant for sure. But plenty of good third party sources. So that makes me confident that the pageant is above notability tresholds.BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 29 October 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.