Should a WP:NPAGEANT set of consensus guidelines be created, linked from WP:N?

Comments by nominator: Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts, I am seeing large numbers of beauty pageant CONTESTANT articles nominated for deletion, mostly state-level pageant winners or national winners of obscure pageants. There are also navboxes for state pageant winners for Miss USA (and maybe Miss America) as well as navboxes for each year's contestants. Someone is going to a lot of work, while others are going to a lot work at AfD. I also see there is no WP:NMODEL set of suggested notability guidelines (SNG) that discuss pageant winners. Most discussions cite WP:NMODEL and the general notability guidelines at WP:GNG. A few AfD discussions point out that WP:BIO1E may also be applicable. So my suggestion is to save someone a lot of time and effort and create a formal set of guidelines, linked from WP:N, and to include the specific question: Does winning a state-level pageant that is a qualifier for Miss USA or Miss America automatically or inherently confer notability? This page could also discuss what confers notability of an individual pageant as well. Montanabw^(talk) 19:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose adding more spaghetti to the already-complex SNG trump card GNG system. I believe that the only criteria for pageants should be significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources, full stop. If something for some reason automatically confers notability, then it should be so obvious that there is no question and no RfC needed (for example, receiving fellowship in the Royal Society or any of the Wolf Prizes); otherwise, there should be no new windows for otherwise non-notable subjects to receive an article. — Esquivalience (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem is the contestant articles --- I clarified my post -- we have dozens of state-level beauty pageant contestant articles and no sense arguing every single one. Montanabw^(talk) 20:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • And it's not just the articles, there are more coming. For example, there is movement to create a navbox for every state's beauty pageant winners, as shown here:

1. Template:Alaska pageant winners
2. Template:Connecticut pageant winners
3. Template:Hawaii pageant winners
4. Template:North Dakota pageant winners

...and so on for all 50 states. And at the same time AfD is routinely nominating these articles for deletion. I frankly question if a state-level pageant winner is inherently notable (I would do a list of the state winners each year, perhaps). But there's been a lot of work put into these navboxes and articles, and it is clear that some folks have a goal of giving every pageant winner their own article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• (Reply to Esquivalience) Notability is never conferred.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• (Reply to Montanabw) Notability is never conferred.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • (Reply to Unscintillating (talk · contribs) if you'd believe John Pack Lambert, non-notability is always conferred. He AFDs without regard to each article on its merits. PageantUpdater (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment -- I would support a creation of a guideline if it would limit the amount of new articles being created on state winners. Is this the objective here? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Please see my comments on the previous attempts to create a standard, above. I support the concept, but I'm afraid that trying to create a one-size-fits-all standard for the entire world is going to be impossible in this specific area, for multiple reasons. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support the notion of creating specific guidelines. Thank you, Montanabw, for starting this discussion. I do note, however, some ambiguity in the proposal. First, it isn't clear whether this particular Request for Comments is intended only to determine whether pageant-specific guidelines are wanted, or whether it is also intended to actually create those guidelines. And second, although most of the discussion thus far focuses on state-level pageant winners, the proposal also makes passing reference to "national winners of obscure pageants" and "individual pageants". Just to be clear, I am supporting two things -- (1) I support the initiation of a series of future RfC's, with each RfC intended to produce guidance on a particular (and pre-specified) aspect of pageants, and (2) I support having the first of those future RfC's address the notability of contestants (both winners and non-winners) at state-level pageants. Thanks again, Montanabw, for starting this discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply; Probably just the creation for now, but the state pageant situation was my inspiration; I suspect that will be a long discussion -- later. I did one of these for WP:NHORSERACING with a more detailed spinoff page based on WP:NSKATE. Montanabw^(talk) 01:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support something, though whether that should specifically result in a standard SNG, something more tailored/expansive, or multiple RFCs as proposed by NYActuary, is another matter. The fewer articles that end up at AFD (whether through keep, redirect, or referenced PROD), and the more consistency required in treatment of pageant articles, the better. A number of AFDs have resulted in deletions where a merge/redirect would appear a more constructive option. Support specifically addressing pageants as well, so as to maintain scaffolding where warranted -- note, for instance the one-vote WP:AFD/Miss Asia Pacific International which was used as "community has spoken" rationale for the wholesale deletion of the yearly contests such as WP:AFD/Miss Asia Pacific 1970. (Additional thought: Could the ?SNG? be written broadly enough to cover both beauty pageants and extended "reality"/talent shows?) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed per Esquivalience and User:K.e.coffman. Any guideline suggesting an "automatic" or "inherent" notability would directly and unacceptably contradict WP:NRV. WP:GNG and WP:V are perfectly clear and not presently up for negotiation. Subject-specific notability guidelines suggest that certain articles may be notable; they absolutely never "confer" notability, and they never excuse articles from demonstrably meeting WP:GNG and WP:V, which the proposed page would likely attempt to do. I think a useful WP:NPAGEANT could be created, but this proposal isn't it. —swpb^T 18:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The opposite is just as likely to be useful -- that state pageant winners are not notable if that's all they've done. Today on the alert page there are about 10 AfDs for state pageant winners. Wouldn't you prefer to prod tag with a "see NPAGEANT" message? Or, if consensus goes the other way, to not have to waste your time? Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Notability is never conferred.  Claiming that "x doesn't confer notability" is a truism.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. "A lot of work" does not establish notability without significant coverage by reliable sources. Winning a state level pageant does not automatically generate such interest. Most of the notable state level winners in Wikipedia went on later to do something else to establish notability. The existing notability guideline for entertainers is adequate for assessing beauty pageant contestants. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No, it actually isn't -- note the discussion above on this page, basically heading directly for a consensus that state-level wins are notable. This RfC is about whether to create guidelines at all, what goes in them is a different discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, please! This is sorely needed. Even though I agree with Esquivalience that per GNG nothing more than extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources should be necessary (this of course doesn't preclude that condition), this would be an extra resource to rebuff overzealous pageant article creators, which believe me we see a lot of at NPP and AfC! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment #2: I have seen WP:ANYBIO 1 being applied to a state-level pageant win. (See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sade Aiyeku). This is puzzling as state-level pageants are not (IMO) "significant and well known". As part of this effort, perhaps it should be established that a state level win does not fall under ANYBIO? I think that alone would help clarify things. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment  The question asked is "Does winning a state-level pageant...confer notability? This page could also discuss what confers notability of an individual pageant as well."  "Confer" means bestow, and wp:notability is never bestowed.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Extremely strong oppose The existing guidelines are adequate. Beauty pageant winners are not generally viewed as models, and when people have tried to cite the model guildelines in the past, they have overwhelmingly been defeated. The only thing I would support would be a statement along the lines "winners of beauty pageants, or other show contests are not notable under the guidelines of winning a significant awards. Significant awards are awards given for a perceived large body of work, not ones given based on performances on one night. To be notable a winner of a beauty pageant or body building pageant or similar event needs to clearly pass the general noability guidelines and do so in a way that is sustained over time and not just a flash in the pan notice."John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Um, {[u|Johnpacklambert)), that would be a standard, and what this RfC is about -- I'd like to see A standard, rather than a war between AfD and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of a wikiproject... as here, if you look above, there appears to be a consensus to include state pageant winners. Montanabw^(talk) 05:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support the guideline that would state:

"Winners of beauty pageants, or other show contests, are not notable under the guidelines of winning a significant awards (ANYBIO1). Significant awards are awards given for a perceived large body of work, not ones given based on performances on one night. To be notable a winner of a beauty pageant or body building pageant or similar event needs to clearly pass the general notability guidelines and do so in a way that is sustained over time."

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Esquivalience who wrote "I oppose adding more spaghetti to the already-complex SNG trump card GNG system. I believe that the only criteria for pageants should be significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources, full stop." Yes, full stop. The WP:GNG is the guideline that counts.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I will agree with Tomwsulcer that new definitions on top of WP:GNG are unnecessary. He and I have experienced a different problematic editor who went further than GNG to (fortunately unsuccessfully) wikilawyer other points to discredit notability; that this is a one time event; that the common sources are covering the event and the mention of the individuals are superficial. There should be some clarity on that point. I was primarily dealing with international pageants, but any pageant worth wikipedia will have sources covering it. The more obscure the country, the more likely the most credible sources in that country use simple technology to disseminate information; i.e. the major newspaper in a small country might use Facebook for their news updates or website. Additionally, the press in some countries is not as free as it is in most western countries. Not so much is applicable regarding states, though local press is still iffy, but any guidance should take these factors into account and clarify. There are far too many pageants that mom will pay for so their daughter can win the "Miss Anything" title. Local press should know the difference and (not) cover it appropriately. Trackinfo (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above editors that state level pageant winners are not notable, unless coverage passes GNG. And agree that a guideline stating this would be useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes and here's how to approach it. An AUTHOR-related AFD that I ran into recently led me to this conversation and made me think. A lot of highly selective prizes are awarded to young people at the end of intense, sustained competitions often entailing years of training and preparation Rhodes Scholarship, List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions, Van Cliburn International Piano Competition, and quite a few more. I am not aware that we have a special guideline stipulating that winners of these or other, early career or youth competitions merit articles. Where we do have such guidelines in a nearly parallel case is with athletes. High school age pageants seem very similar to high school athletes WP:NHSPHSATH, and major pageants like Miss America are a near parallel with college athletics, competitors are about the same age and both categories can launch lucrative careers. WP:NCOLLATH translates almost perfectly to the pageant situation. as with WP:NCOLLATH, we could stipulate that pageant contestant who have won a major national pageant (but not a state title), and those who have "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a contestant for a notable notable pageant title" merit articles. In other words, winners of state-level and minor pageants should be treated like other highly accomplished young people who win major contests, the page on the Marshall Scholarship, for example lists those winners who go on to have notable careers. The page on Miss New York and other state-level contests could continue to list all winners, only bluelinking those who are notable under WP:GNG. I can see NO reason why winning a state level or minor pageant should = notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

As someone who is intimately familiar with WP:NCOLLATH due to my work on other projects, I can say with certainty that I am not a fan of that particular guideline. I can't tell you how many times we've had to fight off frivolous, time-wasting AfD nominations ("Delete. Fails NCOLLATH and NGRIDIRON") on players who easily pass WP:GNG. I honestly think that NCOLLATH, the way it is currently written, is worse than useless, and really does more harm than good. If it were up to me, we would get rid of it completely and just use GNG instead. At any rate, IMHO, it is definitely not something that should be imitated elsewhere. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Here's the problem, folks. While I agree that there is nothing inherently notable in winning a state-level pageant, I would also argue that there is nothing inherently non-notable in winning a state-level pageant, as well. And, many state-level titleholders actually do pass WP:GNG. I just don't want a ton of copy-and-paste delete auto-votes at AfD saying, "Delete. Fails NPAGEANT" etc, without even bothering to check the sources that are already in the articles to see if it passes GNG or not. If you don't believe that's what's going to happen see here. And, for an example of how this is going to play out in the future see this: Sierra Sandison. With coverage from NPR, People Magazine, the BBC, the UK Daily Mail, the New York Daily News, the London Daily Telegraph, and Today, it easily passes even the most restrictive interpretations of WP:GNG. Yet, (in an end-run around the AfD process, I might add) it was unceremoniously converted into a redirect and now dumps into the main Miss Idaho page. And, that's what I'm afraid is going to happen (and more of it, too. I wouldn't be surprised if, after nuking the state-level winners, we start to see Miss America winners appearing next on the chopping block for the anti-pageant crowd) if this proposal goes through. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Commenting on Sierra Sandison -- she appears to have been momentarily famous for WP:ONEEVENT, namely "wearing an insulin pump during a pageant competition". The coverage is all of the same episode. Another way to look at it, it's possible that the event is notable, but not Ms Sandison herself. So creating a page on her would possibly result in a WP:PSEUDO biography. This is an interesting case; I'd like to hear more opinions on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with E.e.coffman on Sierra Sandison, and note that Kayla Martell is a close parallel , a different physical limitation, for which she got an unusual amount of press coverage, but the coverage appears not to have continued and I would say that both articles should be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• No comment in general, but both specific cases are debatable, each could well be independently notable. Martell, for example, has gotten continued coverage; she has become an activist for alopecia, an inspiration to numerous sufferers, and a spokesperson for wig lines, which activities have received reasonable coverage for the past 5 years. I wrote as much in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Martell. Sandison is less clear, as she only finished her title a year go, it's less clear what "continued coverage" would even mean. She has written a book, which has gotten some coverage. --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion to User:Montanabw -- By my count, we now have at least six discussants who agree that some form of guideline should exist. Some have been kind enough to indicate precisely what that guideline should state; others have commented only on the basic question posed by the RfC. But taking into account both types of comments, I think you've achieved the "critical mass" necessary for starting work on the guideline itself. I suggest that this RfC be closed and a new one -- one whose purpose is to establish the actual guideline -- be opened. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• I'm reading it at about 50-50 (six supports, counting me, five opposes). IMHO, I'd say we don't need a new RfC, I say we just start the thing and let the community debate it. I don't yet feel comfortable creating an SNG in WP space, but I'll sandbox a draft here, when the redlink goes blue, there will be something in it. User:Montanabw/NPAGEANT sandbox. Montanabw^(talk) 02:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Montanabw My apologies for the delay in response. I see that we have since received some thoughtful comments from new participants, so I agree that keeping this RfC open was a good call. But I still think it is problematic to open an RfC by asking one question ("should we have a guideline") but then closing it by answering a different question ("and here's what the guideline actually says"). By all means, let's have some more discussion on the basic question, but let's not try to "re-purpose" this RfC. If it will help, I'll be happy to take on the grunt work of opening the second RfC when this new influx of discussants plays itself out. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• This RfC has not received many comments period, I believe in large part because it has not been well publicized outside this very specialized project. I have just posted notices of it on a few projects (fashion, women's history, women, United States) but there are others that it probably should be posted to as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for doing that, JPL, we need fairly wide discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Maybe: The big question is Can we write a guideline that will mirror actual practice and do it in such a way that improves Wikipedia?
  1. Any guideline that would "move" a topic that is now "clear not notable," "on the cusp of notability," or "clearly not notable" into another of the 3 groups without a clear consensus that the definition of what "notability" is has changed or should change is a bad idea. Any proposed guideline should start off as a document that reflects actual, current guidelines and/or actual AFD outcomes (assuming there are enough AFDs to determine a consensus on notability). After the guideline is approved, then we can discuss additional changes that might actually affect what is and is not considered "notable."
  2. A well-written guideline can and should reduce bureaucracy by having a centralized checklist that applies to almost all articles of a certain type (there will always be exceptions). A poorly-written one can have the opposite effect.
  3. If the proposed guideline will only "fit" a small number of potential draft articles or almost all of the articles it would "fit" are already covered under the same existing guideline, then you don't need a separate guideline - having one will just increase bureaucracy. In other words, if WP:ANYBIO is doing its job in 95% of the cases that the new guideline would fit, then we don't need a new one. The fact we are discussing this means that the existing guidelines are at least arguably not doing the job as well as a new guideline would.
• davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• @Montanabw: Others have already said as much, but I will also say it: Guidelines do not confer notability. If anything, the spell out situations where a topic is likely to be considered notable by the Wikipedia editing community at large (or, was likely to be considered notable at the time the guideline was last revised - WP:Consensus can change). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, I agree, but I'm with the folks who describe these as a checklist of "likely to be notable/not notable. For example: state pageant winners: in or out? Obscure international pageants (Miss Earth or something crossed my rada the other day), notable or not? All nations sending winners to Miss Universe, or just redirect most all the winners to the page about the pageant? And if we include Miss USA, is it systemic bias to leave out Miss Guatemala? It's not feasible to dig through past discussions, it's better to have a solid SNG that reflects consensus (which can always change). Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It seems to me that state-level winners of major contests do tend to receive coverage from at least across their respective states, and even if that isn't the only factor that should be considered, it remains a reasonably strong factor. I see no significant difference between statewide pageant winners and singled-out statewide athletic champions -- both generally require a lot of preparation before they reach their zenith with a win. If anyone thinks a pageant winner just shows up on a stage one night, they're not looking at it with appropriate depth. Note that this is merely about a presumption of notability, and WP:GNG can supersede in the end. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support in theory, if it will limit not ease inclusion of such trivial subjects. This is about on par with state-champion high school football players, or recipients of the "Key to the City" of Peoria. There is no doubt that they show up in some newspapers, but it's of trivial, ephemeral, localized interest with no impact on the world (and, really, very little impact on the life of the subjects beyond a brief period).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I'd be interested on when the shift from these articles as presumed to be notable - as they were for a number of years and through many AFDs - to presumed to be not-notable. Was it around the time Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) started his vendetta? I still maintain strongly that they are notable but I can't really be bothered participating in any of this as it clearly is a losing battle and not worth my time. PageantUpdater (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I am sick and tired of this attack language by PageantUpdater using terms like "vendetta". It also shows a total ignorance of the history involved. Other editors besides myself were unilaterally redirecting to the state competition page some articles as winners as early as December of 2015. I did not even nominate an article on a state beauty pageant winner for deletion until June 2016, with the nomination of the article of Sloan Bailey, an article I myself had created. A desire to bring that articles that exist in Wikipedia into order is not a "vendetta". I really wish there was an easier way to encourage people to avoid such attack language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The volume and snarky tone of your edits indicates strongly to me that this subject is the victim of an attack by you. Your refusal to take each article on its merits but instead mass-afd with the same copy confirms that. Prior to 2010 at the very least these articles were regularly passing as Keep. I'm not sure sure how they can be notable one day and not notable the next. PageantUpdater (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• PageantUpdater, The reality is that in the mid-1900s, maybe into the 1970s, beauty pageants used to be a genuinely big deal. America watched as Miss American was crowned. Interest, however, has faded. Therefore, news coverage has fallen off dramatically. The assertion that state level pageant winners are intrinsically notable is simply out of touch with reality and, frankly, reading the sources and arguments brought to AFD debates on this is very like reading PROMO arguments for wannabe singers, actors, writers, musicians and a great deal of the PROMO for tech start-ups and websites that come to AFD. The sourcing is just not there to support automatic notability for state pageant winners, or even for some of the national winners of minor pageants. Some individual winners may pass WP:GNG, or may go on to do so later in life. But I and others in this conversation would like to see a guideline noting that winning a statewide or minor national pageant title ≠ WP notability. Simply to save editorial time in endless AFD discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm seeing a general tightening of application of GNG / other guidelines. I participate in many of the company related AfD and what used to be kept, say, in 2008 is now getting deleted. Same for biographies -- there's no point in maintaining a BLP article for a non-notable subject. There's risk of vandalism and potential embarrassment to the subject. The fact that someone participated in a public competition several years ago does not mean that the person became a public figure. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I don't have a strong opinion at what level the women should be ipso facto notable, but there should be an ipso facto notability guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose State-level competitions in any area will often fail the GNG, so any specific SNG that attempts to indicate state-level is notable is just going to cause issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you've missed the point of this RFC. I think what's being proposed is the exact opposite. PageantUpdater (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support creating a SNG, but I'd think state-level (aka provincial for other countries) winners should not be notable. National winners is where I'd draw the line. Each country gets one per year, more or less, and that should be it. Otherwise, they need to pass GNG on their own merits. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The claim that I "mass AfD with the same copy" is just plain jibberish. The only thing I massed with the same copy was comments to PageantUpdater's talk page, but that is because I posted the tag on AfD discussions to the page as directed by the instructions on nominating articles for deletion. I never copy and pasted any deletion nomination. I wrote them out word for word for each new article being nominated. On the Chrissa Miller discussion my nomination was thus "he previous discussion was largely predicated on the flawed view that winners of Miss North Dakota USA are default notable. The general consensus in recent discussions is clear that winners of such a title are not at all default notable. So we are left to look at sources. The sources basically are what we would expect for a non-notable person. One is a paper published at the university she was a student of. University newspapers are generally not good sources to pass GNG. The other is an article from the local Bismark paper ostensibly about her. However it really is about the Minnesota Timberwolves Dance Team, and uses her as the local hook to cover a broader topic. There is no consensus that members of such teams are notable, and one article in the paper in the town she is from is just not enough to demonstrate notability." This is what I wrote on Blair Chenoweth "compared to some of these state Miss USA winners I have seen, Chenoweth actually has a lot of sources, and more information. However nothing really suggests notability. We learned she danced with the Radio City Rockets, and with a dance troupe in Las Vegas. She is now a dance instructor in Alaska. None of this is performance at a level to make someone a notable entertainer, and thus none of it will make her notable." Since the Miss America competition starts in the 1920s, I would not date the notability of beauty pageants much earlier than that. I think the hey day of beauty pageants in the US lasts until the 1980s. The level of coverage that Sharlene Wells got for winning Miss America is notable. In connection with that, there were more local level beauty pageants then than there would be 20 years later. However I am not convinced even in the 1980s state-level beauty pageant winners were notable. One problem with the "each country gets one per year" idea, is that in the US, there are two pageants, the Miss America and the Miss USA, both of which clearly produce winners who are notable. On the other hand for some other countries we have articles on winners that have no sources, not just not reliable sources, but no sources. I think mass assuming a winner of a nation-wide beauty pageant is notable is very dangerous. We need to consider wheather this pageant really has the level of following that would make the winner a notable person. If I went to Botswana, got two other people to join me as judges, 3 contestants, and 2 audience members and sent our winner off to an international pageant, and convinced this international pageant to let our winner compete, would that be enough to make the person notable. I don't think so. Defualt rules of "every nation gets one winner a year" are downright horrible. If Yap and Truuk decide that as only federated states their societies are distinct enough that there should not be a Miss Federated States of Micronesia, but a Miss Yap and a Miss Truuk, do we bow to their decisions. Are we really willing to say Miss Nauru is notable just because she wins a competition in her country of 10,000 people, without any coverage to indicate anyone cares she did so?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think many SNGs are too lenient. Compare with WP:NCRICKET, a single appearance at national (top domestic) level, even if a complete fail. If we need an NPAGEANT, then model it on CRICKET for consistency, that is, one must win a state level comp, or, appear in the national level comp. Personally I think one should have to win or at least top three once at the national level for anything, or have multiple appearances at the national level to be sufficient. Note that a pageant entrant can be notable for reasons other than primarily the pageant, ie their life outside of the pageant itself now that they are in the pageant, but that would come under GNG anyway and should not be in any NPAGEANT. Aoziwe (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If that's true then it's pathetic anyone is saying state pageant titleholders are non-notable and just another example of their biased views towards pageants. Disgusting. PageantUpdater (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support: This is my first time dealing with anything Pageant. I have no problems with pageants. I also have no problems with things of importance, and of interest, being included on Wikipedia. I do have an issue with any article being created without references, with only a primary reference, or an External links section as a reference, advancing notability. I have concerns with such articles that are being created and then a battle to get them deleted when they are blatant violations. We have arguments that "WP:NMODEL is totally irrelevant to pageant contestant notability" but many articles do present contestants as models so @Legacypac: assessment is correct.

I am not generally for more "rules" but something should be done to help prevent articles, that are clear violations of policy and guidelines, including BLP's, from being created. All articles must follow theses policies and guidelines, especially those concerning BLP's, so we don't end up with ones like Cherise Haugen that has a Pageant Almanac and in IMDb external link. Ruth Zakarian has only an external link to IMDb. A good place to start is at the project level. The remedy of speedy deletion is one course but if an editor or group of editors actively pursue creating these types of articles this does not do Wikipedia any good. Maybe some decisions here can lead to warnings and possible sanctions.

• • Comment Just because such articles are poorly sourced does not mean they should be deleted. Kristi Addis or more to the point this diff shows what a little effort can achieve. If a certain editor put as much time into being constructive as he did into AFDing these articles maybe the whole subject area could be improved. But, oh yeah, apparently it doesn't work like that. PageantUpdater (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I should say certain editors plural as there's a group of them. Great things could be accomplished in this topic if efforts were diverted. Alas. The bias is real folks. PageantUpdater (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This is my first time in this area so it would be hard to consider me biased-- I would think. A problem I see is there are article creationists -- which is a good thing -- but I have seen many instances where creating the stub appears to be more important than conforming to any silly "Rules" like notability or source, even though there is a higher degree of importance on BLP's. We then end up with a catch 22 and a lot of non-referenced, mis-referenced, and non-notable articles, mostly lifetime stubs. It is just as easy-- it would seem to me-- to create the articles by a minimum set of standards then there will be minimum concerns over sub-standard non-conforming articles. That would negate concerns about some editor --worrying about silly things like references-- from having a target. To me it is simple -- articles on Wikipedia are to be referenced. This gives evidence of notability. This has not only been the continued consensus of editors through polices and guidelines but a foundation block of Wikipedia --- and concerning BLP's a WMF mandate. Otr500 (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: If it passes GNG, it should be kept (and if it doesn't/can't, it probably should be deleted). I've been seeing a lot of AfDs that center on the obscurity of the pageant rather than addressing whether or not the beauty pageant winner can or does pass GNG. I would agree with User:PageantUpdater that the mass nominations by User:Johnpacklambert, who has nominated more articles for deletion this month than most people have ever nominated, are indeed problematic. As for creating some sort of SNG, I'm not sure one is necessary if GNG is consistently applied. pbp 19:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Use GNG. I oppose a SNG but may support something like WP:VGRS to determine what sort of coverage would constitute a GNG pass. I share Ejgreen77's concern that a hypothetical NPAGEANT would result in users advocating the deletion of a GNG-meeting article. SSTflyer 04:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: If GNG was sufficient, we would not be here. I cannot speak for JPL, but he most likely believes in good faith that he is applying GNG. The VGRS might help, but for these state pageant winners, what might it look like? I think that we need NPAGEANT because NMODEL doesn't work, but some pageant winners go on to become pretty notable, the question is the point at which winning a pageant itself confers adequate indicia of notability, the creation of NPAGEANT would allow us to figure that out. Montanabw^(talk)

I am not a fan of mass AFD's on the same page. I suppose I am considered a creationist. As far as I know I have never nominated an article for deletion --BUT-- in a couple of hours of researching, and looking around, I found articles like: Valorie Burton, Melissa McConnell, Carol Carter a redirect to August Strindberg Repertory Theatre#2012–13 Season, Stevi Perry, and Hilary Cruz. Look at these and see what you think.

Policies and guidelines are so we don't have editors creating totally original research articles like Miss Latina US, Miss National Asia and Miss Teen US Latina. There had to have had been some source right?

Miss_High_School_America looks like it has 16 references but has six blanket open URL's to the same site advertising www.misshighschoolamericapageant.com, five totally blatant company advertising sites used as references, and one Landry, Deb. "Anti-Bullying in Our Community" that I can't verify. One reference is to Vindy.com and I found references that include Lexi Collins but not Emily Bray from the article. I could not find the reference "Miss High School America Organization Announces Continuing Partnership with People to People Ambassador Programs." Yahoo Finance. N.p., 24 Mar. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. but finally found a americashighschoolpageant press release concerning People to People Ambassador Program and Miss High School America. Out of all this we have blatant advertising (the article is tagged) and a multiple used blanket primary source. Is there really notability?

The first 18 references on Miss Teenage America return HTTP Error 404.0 - Not Found so I gave up. Miss Teen America has listed under Notable national contestants section Christina Ellington with no references and only "External links". Raquel Beezley is the first AFD candidate I came across. She is listed as Notable but that is certainly debatable. Kaitlyn Tarpey is also on the AFD list.

"We have Miss National Sweetheart (I didn't know there was one) that lists some notable contestants but also includes Chera-Lyn Cook, and Tara Dawn Holland that has no references and only external links. Debbye Turner appears to be one where there should be references out there.

Aside from articles being created without any references, and on BLP's this should never be allowed, there is notability. Wikipedia covers this in several places, Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, and essays like Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual.

There are well meaning editors creating articles that may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. This is not a bad thing in itself so they should not be hanged, but I can not fault an editor that has taken on a campaign of cleanup, nor support trying to hang him or her, for seeking AFD's on articles that appear to have been created in violation of policies and guidelines. At least they are not mass AFD's on the same page because I dislike those. Since I am pretty sure I have never initiated an AFD I am being pretty objective here and this is a real good reason to have project discussions on solutions.

The bottom line is should there be articles on people playing minor roles in major events or major roles in minor events covered by this project especially if there is just one event?

I agree with Montanabw. GNG does not appear to be sufficient. There can be no harm in project initiatives, to help editors that ultimately benefits Wikipedia, with some specific consensus agreed upon guidelines like NPAGEANT. We do not need a goal of "giving every pageant winner their own article" only the ones that deserve them. Otr500 (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Just because JPL believes he's applying GNG doesn't make it true, though. What it appears he's doing is nominating articles for deletion based on a guideline of his own devising: any low-level pageant winner isn't notable and should be deleted or redirected, regardless of sourcing. I think a lot of your problem could be solved if his disruptive AfDing was halted. pbp 12:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly my point, except my view is that this is why we need NPAGEANT. I can see Johnpacklambert’s argument, but I also see here that the WikiProject has an apparent consensus that state pageants are notable. So intelligent people can examine the evidence and reach opposite conclusions on GNG. For me, tracking the AfD submissions on pageants, I initially thought that JPL’s noms reflected an AfD consensus, and because most state pageant winners get extensive local, but rarely national coverage, plus there’s a BIO1E element. But then I come here and see that those with expertise in this area seem to consider pageants notable. Plus, there are a lot of minor pageants I’ve never heard of and would value some guidance that says, “yes, this one is a big deal, but that one is totally bogus." Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: See my comments in the previous discussion, above, as far as which pageants are important, and which ones aren't. The problem in this discussion is that literally everyone who knows anything about pageantry is being shouted down and ignored by anti-pageant crusaders, plus the RfC "regulars," who obviously don't know Jack about pageants. Which is why I said from the beginning that creating a guideline would be impossible, unfortunately. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support a guideline, much per Montana's reasoning immediately above. As someone who is unclear on just how notable Miss America vs Miss Universe vs Miss World vs Miss (insert something really large here), as well as all their preliminary contests, inherently are, I would welcome a guideline by experts in the field. In the same way that the football and other sports experts were able to come up with a guideline as to what makes a sports competitor notable. --GRuban (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support the creation of NPAGEANT (with my personal opinion presently being that state pageant winners should not be automatically notable, as sources are often lacking to develop a balance entry per WP:WHYN, but those who pass GNG should not be excluded, and media coverage relating to a pageant win--should reliable sources elect to cover it--should not be excluded from notability for GNG, as I see being suggested below). Montanabw if you'd be so kind as to add me to your tally. Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

TBH, I think I could only support the proposal if it was worded pretty near to what you suggest. This is going to have to be a very nuanced guideline, because there is no clear-cut line in this case the way there is with other topics. pbp 19:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad this seems like it's in the right ballpark, Purplebackpack89! And it did occur to me, closing this RfC to try to create NPAGEANT doesn't imply we must or will be able to develop consensus that deals with every contingency. Seems quite unlikely to me that we would, actually-- seems rather more likely we won't manage a consensus on anything! But if we could develop even a page that just laid out how to deal with subnational pageants, and said there was no consensus yet on other levels-- well it seems to me that already would save a lot of time (and energy and goodwill and other valuable resources!) at AfD. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Innisfree987's - I like the way you put that --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support I support clarification of the specific notability criteria for beauty pageant contestants/participants/winners, and would encourage that the discussion not be limited to US events, but should be inclusive of worldwide pageants. India. Ecuador. Wherever. Note that there are a lot of sock rings that are doing their best to promote people who may not be notable. Having clear guidelines makes it a little easier for WikiGnomes to manage the pollution. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Any evidence of that or just more evidence of Wikipedian bias towards the topic? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen two situations, one each way: 1) There are definitely some “international” pageants that seem to be of dubious notability, and the contestants even less so. But 2) I am also seeing articles on, say, the Miss (insert small nation here) that competed in the Miss Universe pageant being deleted as non-notable when, for example, most of the contestants from better-known European nations are all kept, even if they did not win or go on to do much anything notable later. So I’d like to see both an assessment criteria for what is a notable pageant (as opposed to a Little Miss Sunshine-type of thing, and a consistent standard to apply to contestants (many of these dubious pageants appear to be publicity vehicles for women trying to launch modeling careers) Montanabw^(talk) 09:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the notability of varying countries' pageants, but the accusation of sock puppetry which I find find offensive. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the undisclosed paid editing around WP are sock accounts, a problem across many subject areas. Nothing personal here, I don't think. Montanabw^(talk) 00:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@PageantUpdater: Not everything's about you. I have no idea what you could possibly be offended by, since my comments were neither addressed to you, nor did they intimate you or invoke your name. On the contrary, your baseless suggestion that I am biased against the subject is a direct personal attack. If you were interested in learning more about sock rings, some searching at WP:SPI would yield a trove of information. Searching for "beauty pageant", you would find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnLivinova/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shiyasnazar/Archive just to name a few, but I wasn't speaking only about beauty pageants. Sock rings exist. People create Wikipedia articles for a living. This shouldn't be a matter of dispute. It's a well-documented reality. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Notability is never conferred.  Also, see WT:DP#Proposal: new "Merging to a list" section.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Request to close?

There has been a lot of solid discussion here. I would like to suggest we close this with an assessment that we have nine clear "Support" !votes and four clear "oppose" !votes, (Based on a word search for '''support''' and '''oppose''', so if anyone didn't format their !vote, I missed it) with a general agreement that this RfC isONLY for creating NPAGEANT and is making no recommendations as to what goes into it, which should be a collegial discussion amongst both this project's participants and the WP:N folks. (but if anyone wants to play in my sandbox, I took a short at starting it here: User:Montanabw/NPAGEANT sandbox. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am thinking if we do create a standard it should say that coverage in media related to the person being Miss California USA etc should not be considered at all lending to establish notability, just as we do not generally consider coverage of a political candidate to establish them as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with doing that is that a goodly number of state pageant winners pass GNG. pbp 20:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Except that the "oddball" political candidates do pass GNG; plus candidates with coverage beyond their candidacy (such as, for example, a current candidate in my state Greg Gianforte, who has notability beyond being a candidate). It is the run-of-the-mill losing candidates that don't per NPOL. To me, these pageants seem more analogous to football players. A high school or ordinary college football player, for the most part, isn't going to pass GNG even if they are MVP or state player of the year. If they win the Heisman Trophy, then probably yes, or if they set records, then yes, or if they generate significant coverage because of something unusual, and so on. NSPORTS was created precisely to suss out those nuances. Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This RfC has only been open for a month, which is very short for an RfC. The one on weather or not actors should be divided by sex ran at least six months. It was not posted to a wide variety of forums until even more recently. If we will not let having articles on political candidates in top forums be reason to keep them when they fail, I do not see how we do otherwise for the one event of being a state beauty pageant winner. Just to give people an idea of the type of BLP violations we get from having excessive numbers of articles on beauty pageant winners, I just came across an article on a beauty pageant winner born in 1981 which included the name of her sister based on the Texas birth registry. That is the use of a primary source to include information on someone who has never held themselves out in the public eye at all. This is what happens when articles are created on people who have never had indepth coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's true a month is short for an RfC (the arguably more consequential RfC on New Page Patrols is set to run for 30 days), but sure, why not leave it open a bit longer if it's only recently been publicized. Meanwhile to your substantive point Johnpacklambert--I think we're actually developing a pretty good consensus here that the encyclopedia, per long-standing principle, should only include entries with sufficiently substantial coverage to develop a balanced entry (per WP:WHYN), and even more specifically, that a good place to start would be to indicate that winning a state/subnational pageant is not enough to confer automatic notability, and thus such winners must also pass GNG's standards for substantial coverage, 1E, etc. to be included in the encyclopedia. (You might see my comment in the support votes, and the subsequent comments from pbp and PageantUpdater.) Would've guessed that'd be a development in the right direction, from your eyes? What do you think? Innisfree987 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

And whichever way that state pageant discussion goes, it should be made into a SNG to avoid round two of the same. Remember, this isn't about state pageant notability, it's about creating a SNG. Montanabw^(talk) 22:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep agree. And even more: it's actually about only whether to try to make an SNG. If we can't develop a consensus on anything at all once we get to the discussion of what the notability standards should be, then it'll essentially nullify this RfC and nothing will go up at such a page. I just wanted to suggest to JPL that it could be worth at least giving the go ahead to try, since I think we're all remarkably agreed on how we'd like to avoid round 2, in just the way he's saying. (And even if in the end that changes, well, then it won't written down as consensus anyhow). Innisfree987 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Literally no one has made any comments on this discussion at all for almost 6 days, and it is 8 days since any comments directly on the issue at hand has been made. This is partly because in the interim there was an attempt to ban my participation in parts of Wikipedia. However the interim has also seen arguments that we should keep all the articles on state level beauty pageant winners and even the bizarre arument that a person should be kept because they are "not non-notable". The double negative implies the person cannot get even themselves to say the positive. I am thinking we now need to decide whether there is even a need to move to phase 2. Although maybe if someone went and posted a link here in all AfD discussions that mention this, we could get a more general feel for whether there is support for such a thing. Broad policy decisions should have as much participation as possible, and I am still not seeing enough here to convince myself it is broad in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree things have stalled a bit in part because of the ANI; I think we need some forward motion here, especially as so many AfDs are being closed as no consensus in hopes we'll make some progress. It's my opinion that we actually have, and that there are really very few dissents either on having an SNG at all or about how subnational pageants should be treated (plus it's my understanding consensus does not require unanimity). So I'm going to put in a proposal for closure just below, thanks to all in advance for considering. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for closure

I believe we may have consensus that it would be worthwhile to try create a special notability guideline (SNG), NPAGEANT, that clarified, at minimum, the notability of subnational (state) pageant winners. Therefore I ask participants to consider the proposal we close this discussion as follows:

1. We agree to close this Request for Comment (RfC) with community support for to begin drafting a special notability guideline to address the status of subnational pageant winners at NPAGEANT.
2. The draft will be subject to community consensus at a future RfC before NPAGEANT is created. We will begin the process of creating that guideline by trying establish consensus (via draft, then RfC) on the notability of subnational (state) pageant winners.
3. If we cannot establish consensus on even that question, we will not create an empty page. Participants would still have the option of writing an essay on notability, but it would not have the backing of consensus.
4. If we can establish consensus on subnational pageant winners, we will record that at NPAGEANT.
5. Any subsequent efforts to add other kinds of pageants to NPAGEANT would require separate community consensus.

Thanks to all for considering. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment --- I don't think that there's broad enough consensus on item 1 (creating the all-encompassing WP:NPAGEANT). The rest (items 2 through 5), I'd be good with. I think limiting the scope for now to state-level pageants (sub-national level) would be a good "testing of the waters" on how to proceed with the rest. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope folks will see this and weigh in with either support or oppose so we can get a good bead on exactly where the community stands on 1. But for what it's worth, I don't know that 1 implies it has to be all-encompassing. I was actually envisioning something that said, "Here's the rule for state pageants (specification x,y,z of that); at present there is no consensus on other levels." In fact I personally would not feel qualified to say about the other levels, and would prefer to leave that to others. I just want to nail down something for states since we've spent so much time here and I do really think there's fundamental agreement at least on that! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I was stumped by "community support for a special notability guideline for pageants" -- which did sound that an overall pageant SNG should be created. Perhaps rephrase it as "community support for a special notability guideline for sub-national pageants"? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Works for me! Re-phrased. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support We need a clear guidelines that says "winners of state level pageants are never prsumed to be notable for such alone, they must pass the General Notability Guidelines". I think the current discussion on Edlyn Lewis especially but others makes me want to see if we can come up with clearer guidelines on what sources can and can not be used towards GNG. Specifically I think we should make it clear that newspapers in some way connected to the university the person is a student at absolutely never count. You have to have the multiple, 3rd party, indepth, reliable sources (that means at least 2, but maybe even at least 3) without having one of those 2 or 3 be the college newspaper of the contestants college. I think we also need to scrutinize the sources from the subjects hometown very closely, especially on the test of weather they count as reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose JPL's assertion above. Most state pageant winners get local coverage for their win, plus the qualification to the state final. Beyond that, it is assumed that when they win the state pageant, they then advance to the national pageant where they certainly get coverage. All these add up to WP:GNG for each contestant. Our mission here should be to determine the major pageants that have this sourced cycle and deem all contestants in that cycle as assumed to be notable. If there is a (rare) case where they do not get the traditional sourcing, then take that one article to AfD, but save us the repetitive process of finding the common sources. Each major pageant has a common set of major newspapers and pageant specialty websites that do a spread on each contestant. Folks that is source able. JPL and K.e.coffman are serial ignorers of those sources and are repeatedly nominating any state pageant winner for AfD. When caught, the repeat the same old lines, WP:BLP1E, or just stating they are trivial. They wish to rush this judgement to make the misstatement that state winners are presumed not notable so that BLP1E will then have validity to their malicious attacks on any pageant winner. Their motives are clear. They would like to obliterate the subject of pageants entirely. Every individual contestant in Miss America and Miss USA gets regular, individualized coverage in the New York Daily News, as does the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. here here. Pageant News is a dependable source for each individual. here. When pageants are in Las Vegas, the Las Vegas Sun is equally dependable. The Times-Picayune, Latin Times, Newsday, There are probably a dozen guaranteed sources for every contestant in those pageants. So its time to declare those contestants, state winners all, to be assumed notable and more importantly call off the AfD dogs. Trackinfo (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, a quick reminder that this is only a discussion of whether to try to draft a guideline, not what that guideline should be. Trackinfo, from your comment about wanting to get this matter settled, it sounds like you'd actually support that? Please note that there will be a separate discussion on what the guideline should be, and none of the comments here are binding to that discussion--only the idea that we will have that discussion and record whatever the community consensus ends up being, if we can get one.

I'd be remiss if I did not also make a request to please maintain civility toward other editors and refrain from casting aspersions. This is about policy in general, not about individuals; if you have an issue with anyone specifically, this is not the forum for that. Instead it's appropriate to address it directly with them or to seek dispute resolution. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I've been trying to follow the above discussions above for some time now, and I believe that I've only edited a few pageant-related articles on Wikipedia so far. It appears to me that some kind of SNG or essay on the general notability of pageant participants would be useful at AfD in the future. I would caution though that there have been many in the Wikipedia community for some time now that have looked poorly upon more than a few existing SNGs (supposedly in favor of using GNG instead). It might be useful to do a review of recently-decided (within the last 6-12 months?) AfDs to see if there are any general trends or indicators there that would tend to cause an AfD in this genre to end as keep (instead of delete or no consensus) even when a clear GNG-pass was not entirely evident to most participants of those past AfDs. In my past experiences at AfD, it has appeared to me that it only takes two solid, reliable sources that are independent of the subject of a Wikipedia article in order to pass GNG. Guy1890 (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Good advice, thank you! Innisfree987 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I think this reflect the consensus. Let's not take off on what goes into it now... let's just get to work on creating it! Montanabw^(talk) 07:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The very process of working on a guideline will be useful to the community, as it will provide a centralised forum for discussing the issues being raised by these articles. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment For the process to be useful it needs to be well advertised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)