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 no consensus. With an RfC pending on the creation of a SNG for beauty-pageant-related material and the arguments here hinging on the existence or lack thereof of such a SNG, there doesn't seem to be much point in keeping it open right now. Can be renominated without prejudice after the closure of the RfC. (non-admin closure) ansh66623:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the previous discussion seems to have related to articles on totally different people with this name. That said, Johnson just does not cross any notability threshold and our sources are very far from being reliable, 3rd party secondary sources. IMDb is not considered reliable, and tries to list as many people as possible with no regard for any level of impact. Nothing suggests that Johnson is notable enough to merit an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We appear to have articles on multiple other Miss USA contestants from the year Johnson participated in. Plus, per WP:ANYBIO she "received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 19:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep as per Presidentman. A quick check on the newspaper link turned up:
"Fiscal Court Approves Resolution, Agreement . - Google News". The Sebree Banner. Sebree, Kentucky. December 16, 2004. Retrieved 2016-08-09. A motion was made and passed to request a sign from the state to be placed at the county line at Slaughters noting this was the home of Kristen Johnson who was named Miss Kentucky USA in November.
Delete Not seeing much in the way of sources. If there is an official Wikipedia policy that state winners of beauty pageants are automatically notable, can somebody show us? Even then, I think the general notability guideline would overrule any such guideline, in the sense that such a guideline is in force to lessen squabbling over notability by collapsing past experience (eg it was usually found that state beauty pageant winners were notable, so save your time and just keep it. -- that might be a usual argument.) Here, it doesn't look like this person is notable in terms of media attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there is a presumption of notability for a state winner of a major beauty contest. If there's not significant media coverage, there's something wrong with the media. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work10:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, suppose one is a reporter for a major newspaper, or an editor there -- what can somebody write about a beauty pageant contestant, that might be interesting to readers? See, it is a tough problem, if the pageant winner doesn't date or marry somebody else interesting, or get involved in a cause, or do something ridiculous, or become entangled in a tax scandal -- without such adventures or misadventures, there is a real threat of such a person being super boring. Which is why the media doesn't write about Kristen Johnson. She's boring, mostly -- the only exception here is her physical beauty which is not boring -- that's pretty much it -- the contests itself are pretty boring having the same format year after year. So her long-legged bikini-clad self with sash is what one will splash on our hypothetical newspaper. Even then, that won't hold attention for long, since even great beauty can only hold the attention span for short periods of time, and there will be more beautiful women in future contests and elsewhere. Now, without much media attention, does this person deserve an article in Wikipedia? Try reading the Wikipedia article: is that interesting to us? Did we learn anything important? I didn't. It is fluff. And, regardless of what lists there are in Wikipedia, the general notability guideline is, in fact, a major guideline, and this person does not meet this guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think some of the above rhetoric ignores the fact that Miss USA is not as notable a competition as Miss America. Add to that there are additional such competitions besides these two. I am actually not seeing why major media should devote time to winners of these competitions, and the media generally seems to agree. They only get coverage in very local news sources, such as the paper for the specific locality they come from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Kentucky USA where she is mentioned; the subject is not independently notable. Comment: I don't believe that WP:ANYBIO1 applies here: "received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Winning a state-level pageant, which is less notable than Miss America, is in no way close to meeting ANYBIO1, which I understand is applicable to something like the Oscar or the Nobel Prize. Moreover, any notability under ANYBIO1 is presumed. It still needs to be demonstrated by "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". I don't see this coverage here. In short, ANYBIO1 does not trump GNG, and thus this article is eligible to be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list.
In reply, the use of the word "presumed" has an unclear antecedent. Within WP:Notability (people), the word is used inside WP:BASIC, not WP:ANYBIO. Above is a quote from the lede of WP:N. Notability can be presumed without reference to the WP:GNG; in this case, the word on the right, "People", which is a link to WP:Notability (people). So WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG all create a presumption of notability. This quote also shows that WP:N is not a deletion guideline, rather "how suitable a topic is for its own article". The assertion, "It still needs to be demonstrated by 'significant coverage in multiple reliable sources'." has no foundation. The conclusion that the article can be deleted likewise has no foundation. Unscintillating (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[1]
References
^Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
Above is from ANYBIO, which is relevant here. Further, applying ANYBIO #1 to a state-level pageant win seems like a stretch as these are no "widely known and significant award". If they were, there would have been coverage sufficient enough to establish individual notability of a winner. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need look no further than the minutes from the Webster County fiscal court to know that the world at large considers "Miss Kentucky USA" to be a widely known and significant award. Also, this topic was 2nd Runner-up to Miss USA 2005, Miss Kentucky Teen USA 2000, and 2nd Runner-up to Miss Teen USA 2000. The assertion, "there would have been coverage sufficient enough to establish individual notability..." is repeating a refuted argument. Unscintillating (talk) 21:17, 14 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) 04:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The discussion 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; and (2) 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]
I'm not following; the nominator stated: "Johnson just does not cross any notability threshold and our sources are very far from being reliable" -- this appears to be related to GNG? (i.e. the person is not notable - ?) K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: At this point, we have better delete arguments, since they are better backed up by the policies or guidelinges or whatever, but keep arguments are more numerous. I was considering to close this as no consensus, but since it was here only for one week, and participation is not that high, I decided to relist it for one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she has not won a national title. Being Miss Teen Kentucky does not confer notability. I see no other claim to notability and I cannot find sufficient reliable, secondary source coverage of Johnson to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now with my candid hope being that this'll be closed with no consensus pending the on-going RfC on the issue. It's not yet clear that two state-level wins won't be deemed enough, and as a matter of community process (this having kicked up enough dust to wind up with an ANI and at least two RfCs that I see), I think it's better to wait on confirmation there so a deletion can have the backing of consensus. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:55, 6 September 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.