Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor DuPriest


 * 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 - fails notability. UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Taylor DuPriest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non Notable due to being on one TV show in 2007 and being in a couple of beauty pagents.Vedasdoom (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep You have virtually no edits at all. Just like the last person who posted for awhile on the talk page awhile back.  As I explained then, she passes WP:GNG and thus meets the Wikipedia rules for WP:NOTABILITY.  ContraCostal Times, Inside Bay Area and Entertainment Weekly both provide ample coverage of her.   D r e a m Focus  11:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A search of the Contra Costa Times shows no mention of her. Likewise a search of Inside Bay Area.  There is an article on an ibabuzz blog, but blogs don't confer notability.  The Entertainment Weekly material appears to be the words of the subject herself, which don't confer notability either.  The two beauty contest results pages are from the pageant organization; if this was notable pageant, there should be independent news coverage.  I didn't find any for those contests, but I did come across this.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At the bottom hold your mouse over "Ann Tatko-Peterson" and it shows her email address is atatko@bayareanewsgroup.com so she does work for the Bay Area News Group, and they do own Contra Costa Times. So no need to doubt what she has at the top of that site.  Being mentioned and quoted in a independent reliable source counts towards notability.  Primary sources aren't usually allowed for verifying information in an article, since people could lie.  But that rule doesn't affect confirming notability.   D r e a m Focus  00:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I wasn't clear in my meaning about the contest sites. Having won a contest could confer notability on the subject, but only if it's a notable contest.  If no journalists or other authors write about the contest and its winners, this could be because it's a small local event.  Also, from reading the policies, I do agree that a blog posting by a real journalist is better than one by a random person, but it's not as indicative of notability  as the same as the same text published in an actual newspaper or magazine with an editor selecting and checking what's published. Here's another item about her; not sure if it's independent.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The website listing one of the things she won says "One of the Most Popular Pageants in Georgia", so if that was true newspapers in that state might mention it somewhere. Not sure if "Miss Georgia Sweetheart" is a state thing or just one pageant.  The coverage of her I mention is of her as a person, not her pageant bits.  When the show was on, it was easier to find ample coverage of her in the news.  Google news search isn't as great as it used to be.   D r e a m Focus  04:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Dream Focus should not be allowed / able to vote to keep the page, as Dream Focus is the creator of the page, which I see as a clear Conflict of Interest as Dream Focus has a vested interest in keeping the page on Wikipedia. Vedasdoom (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously no one would create a page about a topic that they thought wasn't notable. I don't see why Dream Focus shouldn't express an opinion.  Whoever judges the consensus will take that into account.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Vedasdoom is a single purpose account, with no edits other than trying to delete this article and arguing at the tea house because he had trouble nominating it and assumed I someone was preventing it despite the edit history of the article showing he just forgot to post the notice there.  If the first thing you do when you come to Wikipedia is try to delete an article because you don't like it, you probably aren't going to be helping the encyclopedia much.   D r e a m Focus  02:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak keep More source may be required, but those two are covering her significantly. Valoem   talk   contrib  16:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 05:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 04:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm seeing a single paragraph on her in the EW piece and then a short (three-paragraph) review from a local newspaper's blog. In my opinion, this does not rise to the level of significant, in-depth coverage in multiple sources. Neutralitytalk 23:25, 29 March 2015 (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.