Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Kentucky Teen USA


 * 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. The nose-counting is 7-4 keep (counting the nom as delete), and similar pages have been kept. The delete votes primarly note a lack of references, but the referencing has been improved since those votes were cast. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Miss Kentucky Teen USA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Indiscriminate collection of information for an event that is not notable. The company that runs this is just a WP:BRANCH or part of a WP:CHAIN. I've had the page tagged for 2 years as completely unsourced yet the pageant fans are busy creating new state level pages for competing companies. Only one winner on the list has their own article. The rest of the people listed are not Wikipedia notable. This topic is best covered on the main article on this business. Legacypac (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable main pageant. The winners here are notable in List form as per similar articles. And result of AfD at Miss Alabama Teen USA and the additional Miss Teen state winner articles that were kept in the joined AfD nom. WP:NEXIST covers rationale for the references issues. Also per WP:SPINOUT. BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to also point the closing admin to this Articles for deletion/Miss Alabama Teen USA AfD result concerning other Miss Teen USA state pageants which was kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Miss Alabama Teen USA closed as "No consensus". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep- As per BabbaQ and the fact that the nominator is being disruptive. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please be consistent - You can't vote that BabbaQ is right when the winners are not notable. . A list of non-notables is an indiscriminate collection of information. Legacypac (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - no references. How can anybody say this is notable?  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No references? have you read the article?BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Aside from the fact that on this date, Feb. 25, there are references, "no references" is not a valid rationale for deletion providing that sufficient references actually exist in the wide world. Carrite (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is nota webhosting service. We do not create articles sourced only to an organizations own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * POV is quite irrelevant, if not based on guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete -- almost all citations are to the list of nn winners, which should not be in the article in the first place (see WP:LISTN). A classic example of WP:NOT: an indisriminate amount of information on a nn branch of the national pageant. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - per the wide variety of sources found with a basic, simple google news search, passes GNG. GuzzyG (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Tenative Keep, otherwise Merge to Miss Teen USA — There appears to be third party sources, though the they may be focused more on individuals than the pageant itself; it would be helpful to find sources that describe the pageant itself and discuss it in detail. If the list is objectionable, it could be culled, but the article seems like a target for improvement, not deletion. At the risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm not seeing what make's Kentucky's pageant less notable than the other 49; it has more references than, for instance, Miss Minnesota Teen USA. If this deletion goes through, I suspect it may impact the viability of those articles. Additionally, nomination suggests merge as the path forward, not deletion: "This topic is best covered on the main article on this business." —Ost (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge is fine. Tzere is no reason for the pages on the other 49 states to exist either. I have yet to see any 3rd party in-depth coverage of any state level event about the event or title or company behind the event. Coverage is always local news WP:ROUTINE "local girl won this award and is going to the national event" No person on this list is remotely as notable as  Peter Wang (cadet) where national media are profiling him and giving awards and commendations but Wikipedia deems him not notable per 1E. Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lists of winners are fine.  Wikipedia has many, many such list articles and there is nothing "indiscriminate" about them.  There is also no requirement that the people named in the list be individually notable.  Indeed, the selection criteria at WP:CSC explicitly permit lists of non-notable people, so long as the list is intended to be a complete listing of the relevant people.  And that's exactly what we have here.  Also of note, the existence of this particular kind of list has been accepted -- twice -- in the deletion nominations for Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants, where both nominations closed as "keep".  And of course, no one here has offered any reason why the state pageants associated with the Miss USA organization should be subjected to treatment that is any different than that given to the pageants associated with the Miss America organization. It's good to see that some people are amenable to alternatives to deletion via a merger into a single article.  But there's a big problem with that approach.  The by-state articles being spunout of Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants have shown that complete sourcing of such lists requires, on average, about two sources for every entry in the list.  So let's do a little arithmetic.  The Miss Teen pageants have been around for about 35 years, so that'll be about 70 references per pageant.  And there are 51 pageants.  So the proposal here is to perform a massive merge that would create a list of more than 1,500 entries supported by more than 3,000 references.  Does anyone here think that such an article wouldn't be so huge as to call for an immediate invoking of WP:SPINOUT?  And wouldn't the spinout be best done on a state-by-state basis?  But that's exactly what we already have here. I also must comment on the nominator's novel theory that the state pageant is simply a "branch" of the national competition.  Nothing in either WP:BRANCH or WP:CHAIN even hints at the possibility that the provisions are applicable to structured systems of organized competition.  If the nominator truly wants to expand the scope of those provisions in this manner, there needs to be a centralised discussion held at WP:NORG.  And don't forget to notify all of the WikiProjects that deal with league sports, because this novel theory could be used to say that individual teams are merely "branches" of the leagues to which they belong.  And would we then call for deletion of our article on the Philadelphia Keystones on the theory that it was merely a "branch" of the Union Association?  Would we do the same with Chicago Whales, because that team was just a "branch" of the Federal League?  And that's just two of several examples from one sport (baseball).  Can anyone here estimate how many other articles would be subject to deletion simply because the nominator has floated a novel theory untested by any centralised discussion?  Considering that there is nothing in this novel theory that would limit its scope to any particular type of competition, I suspect that the number would run into the hundreds, if not thousands.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the analysis of applicability of WP:BRANCH and WP:CHAIN which many editors have ignored. Pageants are run as for profit businesses and state pageants are franchises of the national organization, as are national branches of the Miss Universe Organization. So in that way they are like McDonalds or Subway. Some portray themselves as scholarship organizations, which was debunked by John Oliver quite nicely. There is some truth thst these are somewhat like sports, but following that through organizations like Little League Baseball that have local branches and a system for selecting participants for a national title event do not have individual branch articles. The argument that Miss Teen USA branch pages are needed because Miss Teen State pages exist falls flat because up until last month one of the organizations did not have state level pages at all. Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging in discussion. I won't dispute your observation that the pageants might be run as for-profit entities, but I note that this didn't factor into my analysis of the rules on WP:SPINOUT.  And as for your observation that McDonald's and Subway are also for-profit businesses, the same is true of professional sports teams.  And of course, the latter are precisely the entities that will be affected if your new theory is found to be valid.  I still think that the applicability of WP:BRANCH and WP:CHAIN need to be demonstrated via a centralised discussion at WP:NORG, with plenty of notifications given to the various WikiProjects that address league sports.  And your citing of John Oliver?  Perhaps relevant if we were writing for something called FunnyLookingNerdopedia, but we're not. Your citing of Little League Baseball might have been ill-advised.  There are, in fact, a goodly number of Little League articles that give lists of winners at the sub-national level.  Just a few are: Little League World Series (Northwest Region), Little League World Series (Central Region), and Little League World Series 1957-2000 (West Region).  There are others, and they all serve to bolster my basic point -- lists of winners are fine, even for teenagers and even at the sub-national level. Thanks again for engaging in discussion.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Lists of winners are fine, albeit a little almanacky. Bios of individuals who have won are not fine, barring other extraneous factors, per BLP-1E. Carrite (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to be a substantial state based event, from the looks of the references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2018 (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.