Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alysha Harris (2nd nomination)

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 Kentucky USA. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alysha Harris

Alysha Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The question here is is Wikipedia a smutty tabloid, or is it an encyclopedia. Half the sources in this article consist of indepth analysis of pictures taken of Harris at a party, and debating if the dancing she was engaged in there was acceptable. If being Miss Kentucky USA was really a notable position, we would not have 3 of our 6 sources from one single "incident" at a single party. Harris does not pass notability guidelines. The previous discussion closed keep because it was thought that on close examionation some of the people would be found to be notable, but Harris is not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Kentucky USA; valid search term and the subject is listed there. Cursory source searches (Gnews, Gsearch, Gbooks) are not providing significant coverage, and sources in the article are inadequate to qualify a standalone article. North America1000 01:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my position in the previous AfD. In my view, state winners of major beauty contests have presumed notability. AfD's aren't about article quality. If a state winner of a major beauty contest doesn't have significant media coverage, there's something wrong with the media. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If kept, I think the part about Harris and Randy Moss should be deleted. It has no inherent or lasting notability, and in a very short article that is not likely to expand much beyond its present content, it indeed makes Wikipedia look like a "smutty tabloid", per JPL. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As with other awards, only national winner have presumed notability DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I have removed the section mentioned by Acdixon as a BLP violation. Per BLP policy, do not restore it without clear consensus. Even for semi-notable semi-public figures, we do not include that sort of material. DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Satisfies WP:ANYBIO#1, as Miss Kentucky USA is a well-known and significant award.  The in-depth article from the Madison Courier includes the comment, "As Miss Kentucky USA, Harris will spend a year making personal appearances throughout the Commonwealth and will compete in the Miss USA pageant, which is nationally televised."  The topic also satisfies WP:GNG.  Both the Kentucky Senate and the Kentucky House passed resolutions honoring Alysha Harris for being crowned Miss Kentucky USA in Somerset on 6 January 2008, HR150 and SR149.  As partially mentioned above, there are articles from Boston, Minneapolis, Las Vegas, and Hollywood about the topic's dancing photographed at a Kentucky Derby party.  This stock photo credited to the Lexington Herald Leader was taken at the Kentucky Derby.  Harris's result was identified as a "success" here by a Kentucky government education committee.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the WP:N nutshell, "...notable topics [are] those that have gained sufficiently significant attention..."  This is 38 members of the Kentucky Senate, and 100 members of the Kentucky House, who have given attention to the topic.  These two groups represent 4.4 million Kentuckians.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Kentucky USA per WP:BIO1E; the subject is otherwise not notable. The event itself is not notable as there's no stand-alone article for the specific year that that subject competed in. A state-level win in a 2nd-tier (?) pageant does not meet ANYBIO1, and thus the subject is not presumed notable. The level of coverage does not rise to meeting GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO1E says nothing about "the year spent making personal appearances throughout the Commonwealth", or that the topic "will compete in the Miss USA pageant, which is nationally televised."  Nor does this "event" end after one year.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that this !vote analyzes the alternatives to deletion, which is required to raise a notability argument to the level of WP:DEL8.  Among other alternatives, consider that:
  1. WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
  2. WP:Editing policy#Try to fix problems states, "Instead of removing content from an article, consider...[m]erging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  As per the lede of WP:N, wp:notability "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page."  I'm ok with a merge being a recommendation of this AfD, but if no one volunteering, then IMO this article should remain as stand alone.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 23:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alysha_Harris_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1077947140"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alysha Harris (2nd nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.