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. J04n(talk page) 13:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Sweetheart[edit]

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

I'm sorry, but you are kidding, right? a pageant with no coverage in a town that just about defines bumfucknowhere? The winners got coverage in their hometowns. what a surprise. Where is the significant coverage of the event itself? John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would need to be shown that this competition received substantial coverage, other than for its local winners in local sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hoopeston, Illinois#Miss National Sweetheart pageant (see below). I agree that this pageant doesn't generate the coverage needed for a stand-alone article, but there is enough sourcing to justify having a section in the Hoopeston, Illinois article. I've already merged the relevant contents from the instant article into the target, so the only remaining question is whether a redirect is appropriate. I think it is, because the phrase does get used in this context in other sources, so it is a plausible search term and a valid Alternative to Deletion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NewYorkActuary --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can see a redirect for the main article, however there is no reason whatsoever to keep the individual results articles. John from Idegon (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rename to National Sweetheart Pageant. I hate beauty pageants and I hate articles on beauty pageant contestants on WP. HATE THEM. However, this national contest was established in 19-fricking-41 — nearly 80 years ago for those of you bad at math — and every single year since then there has been independent, substantial coverage in the American press somewhere about the contest and its winner. At Newspapers.com there are 745 articles hitting on the exact phrase "National Sweetheart"+"pageant." This is enough to put this miles, or multiple 1.62 km increments, over the GNG bar. The individual contest winners may not, generally should not, be notable, but the institution certainly is. This is essentially a "training pageant" for the Miss America pageant, open to first runners-up in their state competitions, at least ACCORDING TO THE BOOK The Story of Corn, by Betty Harper Fussell (Knopf, 1992). Carrite (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And HEEEEEERE's coverage from the Press of Atlantic City detailing the 2016 break between the Miss America Organization and the National Sweetheart organization. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is significant coverage from the Danville Commercial-News detailing recent history of the pageant and its requirements. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AND MORE coverage from WILL at the University of Illinois, via the university's dot-edu website on the turmoil and potential impact of the 2016 Miss America/American Sweetheart spat. Carrite (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention THIS substantial coverage of one of the pageant's judges, a retired professor who provides significant detail that could be applied to expansion of the piece. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And so on. It's not hard, let's get off the IDONTLIKEIT and SMALLTOWNSSUCK train and get serious about following GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hoopeston,_Illinois#Miss_National_Sweetheart_pageant. This section in the target article (3 paras) already sufficiently covers the pageant. The list of winners in the present article does not need to be preserved, as they are almost all non-notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Carrite's discussion has given me pause to reconsider. Not all of their arguments are on point. For example, the Press of Atlantic City coverage already appeared in the article, as well as the material added to the Hoopeston article. And a lot of the other coverage from outside Hoopeston is really a discussion of the local people associated with the pageant. I suppose one could argue that this demonstrates some notability because it shows that non-Hoopeston media is willing to devote some time or space to it, but I'm not sure how much notability is created by it. Instead, what got me thinking was Carrite's observation that this is a very long-running institution (older than all of the major international pageants). And I found via HighBeam that the pageant itself has received some substantial coverage in two major Chicago newspapers. The Sun-Times did a piece on it in 1989 and the Tribube did one in 2003. Sure, Chicago is in the same state as Hoopeston, but I understand that they are more than 150 miles apart. So, this isn't local coverage. And it's enough to push me over the line to recommendation a "keep". NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2018 (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.