Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss University of Florida


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Despite the sources, consensus determined that they were not sufficient to establish notability. ✗ plicit  14:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Miss University of Florida

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable beauty pageant with a complete lack of secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Let&#39;srun (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Let&#39;srun (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Uses bare url links, no primary references from the school nor secondary references to justify this. Conyo14 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are some more sources out there, however, I believe that the pageant does not meet notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Grahaml35 - I realize on paper it seems odd, but there's over 1,900 mentions of the contest on newspapers.com alone - See here. There's clearly notability.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's over 1,900 mentions just in Florida alone from newspapers.com about this competition See here. It's clear this is a notable competition. Here's 17 examples, and these are just up to 1965 or so and don't count papers not uploaded to newspapers.com, any radio, television or local magazine mentions - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13], 14, 15, 16], 17 KatoKungLee (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, all of the sources you cited either aren't significant coverage (ie, only a paragraph) or aren't about the pageant itself. WP:ITEXISTS is not a sufficient reason to keep any article. Let&#39;srun (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let&#39;srun - That's not true at all. Please check again. This is why I did the ANI. Keep in mind, that's just up to 1961 with 60 years to go. KatoKungLee (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, sources #4 and #5 appear to be the same article. Let&#39;srun (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As I just wrote on your talk page WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is not a great argument to make (I realize that it is an essay but I think it bears mentioning) Let&#39;srun (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let&#39;srun - Here's what WP:LOTSOFSOURCES says - Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions. Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term. The specific articles I linked to are from newspapers and do not fit that criteria. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a reason why some editors present the sources through the "Source Assess Table Generator" - you have yet to present why those sources are sufficient. Notability requires sources that don't mention the item in passing. Any in-depth source about the origin of the pageant, the people who started it, etc would most likely give solid weight to keeping the article. – The Grid  ( talk )  16:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Grid - So far, I haven't actually seen any interest in looking into any of these and have been dealing with 20 other beauty pageant nominations from the same user(with some of these already being deleted before I could look into them, which sadly makes this a race as much of a collaborative research event). First I was told they didn't exist. Then I was told all of the 1,900 search results were just WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, so none of them count. Then out of the 17 articles I posted, the only comment I got was that 4 and 5 were the same, though it wasn't mentioned that the paper published the same article twice for some reason. I don't take those as serious, interested responses.
 * Here's how I would sum up each one: 1 - describes what's going on at the pageant. About a paragraph's worth of details plus the headline. 2 - It talks about some of the things that the winner of that years contest had to do. 3 - About 2-3 paragraphs worth of what will happen at the contest. 4 - An entire article dedicated to the contest. 5 - The newspaper posted a copy of #4 on a different page. We can speculate as to why. 6 - This talks about how Karolyn Bagg won it, which I think is important. 7 - About 2 paragraphs on the upcoming contest. 8 - A quick paragraph about the winner of the 1961 contest. 9 - A couple of paragraphs about Avie Marie Jenkings winning the competition. 10 - A couple of paragraphs and a headline about the upcoming competition 11 - A couple of paragraphs on the result of the 1962 competition. 12 - A full page article on the competition. This was called a passing mention. 13 - 3-4 paragraphs on the upcoming contest. 14 - 2-3 paragraphs on the result of the 1965 competition. 15 - 2 paragraphs as part of coverage on Spring Frolics week, which this comes during. 16 - Headline and about a paragraph as coverage of Spring Frolics. 17 - About 2 paragraphs about it, talking about the things that will happen and last years results.
 * - I stopped in the 1960's as I believe there's enough coverage. I think its also important to note that we have 0 access to any news or radio broadcasts from this time and are missing lots of other papers which likely also talked about the pageant. Since it's nearly 70 years old, I think we have reason to assume it got covered and that more sources exist. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me re-ask this without thinking about the sources. If you could provide three significant sources that provide in-depth explanation, what would they be? There's an essay about three sources that gives a better idea of looking for general notability. The importance is the quality and not the quantity. – The Grid  ( talk )  15:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @ The Grid  - I'm not wasting any more time on it. I was told no sources existed. I posted sources. I haven't seen much evidence than any of them were read. I was then told that I needed to post a preview about what each one was about. I did and again, it doesn't seem like anyone read them. Now I'm being asked to do another rendition of it. No. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Non-notable local event. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is also in effect. Many sources were provided, all of them far too weak. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2023 (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.