Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polly Peterson Bowles


 * 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. Mkdw talk 04:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Polly Peterson Bowles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bowles has no claim to notability. Winning a state pageant is not enough on its own. The book she coauthored with her sister is not enough to make her notable. Her work as a lawyer is totally unnotable. Her running for Minneosta State House and loosing in the Republican primary is the thing non-notability is made of. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The book actually received a significant amount of coverage. I'll take another look and see what I can do with the article.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- no additional sources have been produced to assert notability and I'm not convinced that the book (if sources are provided) would confer notability to the subject. That would be a better argument for creating an article on the book. The article as is stands is strictly a vanity page and provides no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: state beauty pageant winner and failed political candidate does not meet threshold for notability. Quis separabit?  14:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A state level beauty pageant might count toward notability if there were enough reliable source coverage about her in that context to satisfy WP:GNG, but it does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie just because she exists — and being an unsuccessful candidate for political office does not speak to notability at all. And when it comes to the referencing, the beauty pageant and book are sourced to primary sources rather than reliable ones, her birthdate and non-notable family members were sourced to a user-generated genealogy site that policy explicitly deprecates as inherently invalid sourcing for anything in a Wikipedia article and therefore had to be stripped, and the little bit of actual RS coverage present is purely routine local coverage of the election (one of which just namechecks her existence a single time). This is simply not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a state-level beauty pageant winner or an unelected candidate for political office notable for those things. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2016 (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.