Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants


 * 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. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Miss America&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

List of state winners of a teen beauty pageant created from lists that were in articles deleted at Articles for deletion/Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding Teen. Some of the editors who offered keep opinions at that AfD thought that simply combining the lists from those articles into one big list would be a good compromise and one of the delete !voters agreed. Now I'm all for compromises that bring articles into compliance with the relevant policies and guidelines, but this list is even more problematic than the deleted articles. Wikipedia is not a directory of teen beauty pageant winners. In addition, per WP:SAL, "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." The state-level winners of teen beauty pageants are generally not notable and Wikipedia does not do articles about them. See, for instance, Articles for deletion/Canden Jackson. This article may be speediable as a db-repost ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Delete. It appears to consist largely of a list of non-notable people. The notable red links will become articles when someone undertakes the task. --Stormbay 23:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that I see two blue-linked names on there (one of which is to an apparently unrelated Australian actress, the other to a winner at the national level), and that precedent from the above-noted AFDs suggests there will likely never be articles for these people, I think a list is probably a bad idea. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Redlink farm.  I wholeheartedly reject the notion that smushing a whole bunch of non-notable stuff into one big article somehow magically makes it notable.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep at the end of the afd there were concerns at having 51 such articles, and proposals were made as to how to cut this down. I created this page as a compromise solution, and there were a number of editors who agreed that this was a reasonable compromise.  The Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants are the sister pageants to the Miss America system and this is the second most notable Teen pageant in the country, and also one of only two televised (on The N).  It is highly important that the names of titleholders and state results be found recorded and as Wikipedia is not paper I cannot see what the problem is.  I feel the nominator is being vindictive - if he had concerns  I believe the nominator should have raised any concerns when this article was briefly discussed on the original afd.  If you search Google News for articles on the programme, you will find nearly 900 hits and if you search their normal news service there are 121 hits. WP:SAL is a guideline, not policy and the list serves more than just listing the names, it also lists the results for each state and in some cases important information about each titleholder, such as noting the first crossovers from the Miss Teen USA system and vice versa, the amount of which is only going to grow.  I know the article doesn't have much content yet but that doesn't mean it can't be expanded, it simply means that at the moment I have other priorities.  And I just saw a mention of the Teen afds... it was also noted there that the lists on the individual Miss Teen USA state article provided a way of recording the names of titleholders so individual articles were not needed. Please keep that in mind when you vote. -- PageantUpdater 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss as to why you think I'm being vindictive. This certainly isn't personal.  You might want to consider extending some good faith, even to those who think they are improving Wikipedia by nominating one of your contributions for deletion.  I see you did mention your creation of this article in that AfD on July 4, seven days after the nomination.  I have to admit that I had stopped paying attention by then as I thought most of the arguments had been made, responded to, queried, counter-rebutted, etc.  Also, it was a public holiday in my corner of the world and I was on vacation away from my computer.  I apologize if you would have found my response there useful.  Although I don't think further responses to AfDs one has participated in are strictly required by WP policy, guideline or practice, I personally try to take a "jury duty" approach to them and check in from time to time.
 * In any event, I don't see any reasons (beyond WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING) why this article should be kept. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that was unfair of me. However you last comment is just plain ridiculous.  Are you ignoring the large number of Google News hits?  THere are a number of articles that I don't see any reason for keeping on here but that doesn't mean I go around nominating them for deletion whilst ignoring that fact that there are hundreds of reliable sources. PageantUpdater 22:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (In my Uncle G voice) "Counting Google hits is not research". That is especially true where the search parameters are broad and overinclusive.  There are sources for Miss America's Outstanding Teen, which no one is trying to delete.  There were not sufficient sources for the state pageants individually, nor are there sources that discuss the state pageants collectively.  Besides which, from the discussion at the prior AfD you mention above, this is intended to be a list.  I've offered the reasons in the nom why I think this doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion of lists on WP.  Your rebuttal was that WP:SAL is only a guideline.  You are correct, but this guideline enjoys broad support in the community.  The most common reason articles are deleted at AfD is for lack of notability, which is itself "only a guideline," after all. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As the name indicates, these were established under the auspices of the Miss America organization, so it's more than the county beauty contest (like the "Prettiest Pretty Princess Pageant" on My Name is Earl). My only concern is that the results, now in just their third year, might eventually take up a lot of space (although the current tables take up surprisingly little, at 19K). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs)
 * So everything that Miss American organization does is notable? Corpx 01:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I strongly opposed the state articles, and I consider this an acceptable compromise. Where there's a real difference of opinion, a compromised of this sort is the best solution--as with merging non-notable schools into school districts. DGG (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I too support compromise, when it's based in policy/guidelines. I can also understand someone who created an article feeling strongly about it.  However, I don't believe in compromise simply because someone feels strongly about a matter when a good argument hasn't been advanced. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also (and a minor point), you said you strongly opposed the the state articles? You don't seem to have offered an opinion at the AfD on them. Obviously, this is not required to have a valid opinion at this AfD, I'm just a little confused is all... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I also was completely opposed to an article for each state. I had notability issues with the girls individually. But in order to reach consensus, I was and still am willing to concede that the girls as a group with the title are enough to confer notability to the article. Trusilver 02:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep reasonable compromise to put them all on one page. Just because they are listed does not mean that every single person on the list is going to have an article. The information is varifable and may be of interest to some. Each state Miss Teen USA contest has it own page (Unless that is the next target for AFD). MAOT is part of Miss America. I suppose the next "compromise could be just put the state info the MAOT page. Or how about if we put the teen winners on the respective Miss State pages for example put Miss California OT on the Miss California page. I am wondering is there any page on wikipedia that the people who oppose this article would find a acceptable place to store this information or do they just want it gone?  Smith03 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting the the Miss State Outstanding Teen winners int he Miss State articles would be a good compromise, as it would solve the WP:SAL and WP:LISTCRUFT problems with the list up for discussion here. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense: Putting the winners of Miss America's Outstanding Teen pageants on Miss Teen USA articles would be akin to putting Champ Car World Series race winners on the pages of Indy Racing League races. These pageants are in competition with each other.  There is no linkage between the two.  To think that this is an acceptable compromise shows a basic lack of understanding in the topic, an understanding that should quickly be apparent be reading the articles themselves.  Perhaps a better understanding here may have prevented this nomination (and others) from occurring in the first place. --After Midnight 0001 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. (edit conflict) A reasonable compromise was reached in the previous AfD discussion. There are currently 26 citations to the article from reliable newspapers throughout the United States, so some notability is asserted and referenced. While the WP:SAL guideline is important, I think this is a reasonable example where Ignoring all rules is appropriate. A compromise that I would like to see is that the article would not be a collection of red links to contestant articles that can't be started, but rather would be unlinked except for blue links to notable contestants. Royal broil  02:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above-- Sef rin gle Talk 02:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. The beauty pagent circuit is inherently notable.  Mosquera 07:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable social institution. If the winners are not notable then that is an editorial judgment but the sereis of events are still notable.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep seems to be a reasonable compromise. Personally WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I would agree that it's fairly well sourced and seems to be within the notability of a 1.8 million article encyclopedia. Basically I can't see any compelling reason to delete it. Megapixie 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this arrangement is an acceptable balance. I've gone ahead and delinked the contestant names, since the consensus view seems to be that their individual articles shouldn't be recreated. -- Groggy Dice T | C 06:40, 16 July 2007 (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.