Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delanie Wiedrich

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. Kurykh (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delanie Wiedrich

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I almost feel horse from saying the same thing over and over again in this matter. Miss America contestants are not default notable. We need widespread, indepth broad sourcing. Not just home town paper and radio reports and internal pageant bios. That is all we have here in the article. I looked to see if I could find either broader coverage or sustained coverage and found neither. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep – Has sufficient Google News results for it to be considered notable. J 947 00:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per J947 above --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The news sourcing is all local and around the even of winning a state beauty pageant. It clearly is not enough to show notability. We had a long discussion on this on the ptlroject page for beauty pageants and it was clearly determined that this type of localized short burst of coversge was not enough to sgow notability. There needs to either by broad coverage in depth for the peageant which there is not or coverage of somethin else which there is not. The above votes also neglect the fact that mere showing up in a google news search does not show that the sources are providing theindepth coverage required by GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're not all local. J 947 18:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which source is not local?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep article over qualifies WP:GNG which is basic yardstick for establishing notability on Wikipedia on second look nominator of article is currently answering a case on "his Behaviour of nominating numerous articles for deletion without taking time to read reference provided" Celestina007 (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You are prejudicing the nomination based on alleged behavior of the nominator without considering the nomination itself. This is just wrong. The article does not pass GNG. I looked into the sources and to claim that they pass GNG misrepresents GNG. You don't pass GNG with hometown newspaper citations, a few human interest stories, and articles in your college paper. To claim this article passes GNG is to misrepresent what GNG is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "on second look" do you not understand. They clearly made their mind up prior to seeing the ANI. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable BobLaRouche (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2017 (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.