Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlotte Deupree


 * 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__. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Scarlotte Deupree

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let&#39;srun (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants,  and Alabama. Let&#39;srun (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Deupree won Miss Alabama and came in as the runner-up at Miss America 2003. I feel that's significant since it's the biggest beauty pageant competition in the country and the Top 5 is basically the pageant equivalent of a podium spot. Had she just won Miss Alabama and not won any other awards or pageants, I might agree, but right off the back, that is more than being famous for one thing. So I am voting keep.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete because the subject fails Notability. BLP1E or not, the subject must still pass WP:BASIC. I believe she does not. The only source that maybe qualifies under the GNG is a very small local newspaper. Here is a source assessment table:

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 16:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, thanks for the source analysis! Fails WP:GNG, and I'm not sure what other SNG would apply. There is no consensus that beauty pageant participants or even winners are inherently notable. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 15:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment not all sources are in depth sources individually, but note that WP:NBASIC states: “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability” 109.37.150.153 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment2 Greenville Advocate looks indeed reliable and indendant. Has a wikidata item (here) and is added manually to the list of missing articles for newspapers and Alabama and Alabama newspapers. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think these sources are independent: bizjournals.com, styleblueprint.com and another source of Greenville Advocate 109.37.150.153 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per source table above. Nothing for GNG, some confirmation of the pageants she's participated in. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Greenville Advocate is a reliable newspaper. I have provided a Library of Congress record  to prove their validity as a legitimate newspaper organization. Local news stations and newspapers are considered reliable unless proven otherwise. It does not change the rest of the source analysis beyond this one source, which will count towards GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I hate to say it but it appears that she probably doesn't pass WP:GNG. The only thing going for her is the small local newspaper. What about the sources the IP posted earlier? Has anyone looked at those? Dus</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 11:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.