Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Bouchard


 * 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 redirect to Miss Maine. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Molly Bouchard
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bouchard has two blimps of notability. The first is not mentioned in the article and probably for good reason. I found it from this article which at first I thought looked like a reliable source. The problem is that Star Search was a CBS publication, and this comes close to being self-produced PR for the show. 1 mention for a 12-year-old does not make someone notable. So we move on to the Miss Maine coverage. 2 are local news stories of the type "local person wins an award". 1 is a Miss America organization source that is not indepdent. The last is a one sentance passing mention in an article about something else that does not constitute significant coverage. None of this is enough to pass the general notability guidelines. We do not create articles for people who only get notcied for one event, expecially when it does not rise to the level of a major award as required by the biographical notability guidelines. Bouchard is just plain not notable and we should delete the article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Winning a state pageant is not enough for GNG. Nothing else found.  Agree with analysis by nom. MB 04:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum As per WP:BEFORE C1, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."  Merger is ordinary editing, but the editors at Beauty Pageants have preferred to create standalone articles.  The most that a notability argument can do in this case is flip the article so that it is not standalone, such as merged to Miss Maine; and given the longstanding content consensus by the content contributors, the issue is not relevant for an AfD forum.  Applicable policy is WP:Deletion policy, WP:Deletion policy, and WP:Editing policy, which includes WP:PRESERVE.  Policies are not optional.  If this is supposed to be an IAR deletion, the argument is not so stated, thus cannot be directly adressed.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Content consensus" by "content contributors" is an argument for ownership. Considering that the actual discussion on the beauty pageant talk page shows an overwhelming consensus by participants in the discussion that winners of sub-national pageants are not notable, the above argument ignores what the actual consensus caused by editor participation is. People do not get special ownership by being article creators.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the your claim about consensus, what you've actually said is, "I have to admit for now my main concern is that we make it clear that winning sub-national pageants does not on its own make one notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC) " You are concerned about making it "clear", which defines it that your view is that such consensus is "not clear".  And I've also told you how you can get build the wall you want, which is to create a WP:NOT guideline.  Attacking state-level winners using a death-by-one-thousand-cuts strategy is a plan to undermine WP:Deletion policy and WP:Deletion policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as past AfDs show so it shows this one is not different at all since only the mere participating is the information itself hence there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else regardless. SwisterTwister   talk  04:20, 7 January 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.