Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Anderson

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 keep. Overall consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Anderson (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)

Formula article on a Miss Oregon which should be deleted and a redirect to Miss Oregon created. This article even says she went back to school after winning. Follow the advice in WP:NOPAGE Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 09:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:GNG. "she went back to school after winning" – please see WP:NTEMP. sst✈^(discuss) 09:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline aka "15 minutes of fame" says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." which is the case here. Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a WP:GNG pass, obvious notability supported by the sources present in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as sufficiently sourced. As for being upset that she went back to school - that is a non-starter here. Jodie foster "went back to school" and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. studied Greek at the age of 92. Collect (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as her alleged notability is for a state-level beauty pageant -- which is, in fact, an ephemeral single event, even if granting the supposed importance of being a state-level beauty queen. Basically, the article is a collection of trivia propped up by local "hometown girl makes good" coverage and doesn't indicate any real accomplishments worth noting. So no, it doesn't cross -- especially not "easily" -- any real notability thteshold. --Calton | Talk 00:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there is plenty here for an article, so NOPAGE is not applicable, and the subject meets gng. Going back to school is irrelevant. Jacona (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the going back to school comment is she did not pursue a career in modeling, acting, or anything that would generate continue notability. She had her WP15MOF and that's it. Look into the sourcing and point out the substantive coverage please. Legacypac (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2015 (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.