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 delete, after much-extended time for discussion, as consensus has clearly established that winning a teen beauty pageant does not suffice to support encyclopedic notability. Deletion is without prejudice against refunding to draft for additional work, should additional sources arise supporting the notability of the subject. The title will be redirected per WP:PRESERVE. BD2412 T 03:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Reimer (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)

Winning Miss Teen Canada Miss Teen Canada (later, articleless version) doesn't satisfy WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* KeepSame argument as another beauty queen, except this one is a teen. The Miss Teen BC title is a good title, it's provincial in Canada, similar to state-level in U.S. so it's basically like winning Miss Alaska, so are you going to nominate Debbe Ebben too? If all state-level beauty queen winners in the U.S. can have an article, then why discriminate against provincial-level beauty queen winners in Canada? Also, Miss Teen Canada is a national pageant, she won at the country-level, you can't argue that's obscure unless you consider Canada obscure? Wiki2008time (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet ~ Amkgp 💬 16:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki2008time, it isn't really about winning a contest. It's about whether she satisfies Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:GNG. Many articles of incredibly popular individuals have been deleted for not meeting WP:GNG. Feel free to find reliable sources that give her significant coverage and we can happily satisfy policies and keep it. But at a quick search I see few such articles to warrant a keep. We don't make an article just for "person won a contest". It can be added to list at Miss Teen Canada. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:::I seem to see a lot of articles about people who have won beauty pageants in the U.S. without anything more interesting about them beyond that, so that tells me a beauty pageant title is significant enough to confer notability. Also, Miss Teen Canada is referring to a different pageant compared to the one Shalom was in. While Miss Teen Canada is a retired pageant, the newer one that Shalom was in doesn't seem to have a wiki page. Wiki2008time (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet ~ Amkgp 💬 16:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss BC may be equivalent to Miss Alaska (debatable, as there is no real media coverage of the former that I'm aware of), but Miss Teen BC is like Miss Washington Teen USA, in which none of the winners have articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:::: Plenty of media coverage available on Miss BC at Miss BC including The Province http://www.theprovince.com/Miss+Pageant+2009/1764478/story.html and some state-level teen beauty queens do get articles, but that's not even the point, as she won at the national level. A quick scroll through Miss Teen USA, the American equivalent of Miss Teen Canada, will show you that plenty of the national winners have their own wiki article. --Wiki2008time (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet ~ Amkgp 💬 16:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC) :::::* NOTE: If this will end up being deleted, please at least redirect to Miss Teen BC. I would suggest a redirect to Miss Teen Canada as it is a higher title, but that page is NOT the same pageant. That page leads to a pageant that was cancelled in the 90s, whereas Reimer won a pageant that is active now but has the same name - but no wikipedia page for the new Miss Teen Canada pageant. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet ~ Amkgp 💬 16:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete placing in one single lower tier, dime-a-dozen pageant that is questionably notable doesn't mean she automatically meets the relevant n criteria. And given the lack of actual coverage, this doesn't warrant a standalone article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe the article is now sufficiently sourced to meet GNG. (Coverage twice by CTV plus articles in a variety of local BC papers.) But I would encourage others to re-look at the article as I made the expansions in coverage myself. (note: Winning Miss Teen Canada is a likely indication on meeting crietria 1 of WP:ANYBIO, but failure to meet additional criteria outside of GNG (ie. WP:BIO) doesn't mean the subject is automatically non-notable.)

• whoops, forgot to sign this when I wrote this. Signing it now. Samsmachado (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Elaborating on my rationale for GNG:

CTV News BC - more than trivial, though not quite substantial coverage from a reputable provincial news source independant of Reimer

604 Now Article - more than trivial, though not quite substantial coverage from reputable Vancouver-based news source independant of Reimer

Langley Advance Profile Langley Advance 2 - Substantial coverage from regional newspaper

Saanich News - more than trivial, though not quite substantial coverage from regional news

Surrey Now - more than trivial, though not quite substantial coverage from regional news

BC Local News - more than trivial, though not quite substantial coverage from regional news

Re many of the articles having the same picture: it is common when newspapers are unable to send their own photographers to an event to ask the subjects of the articles for a photograph or sourcing a photograph online (ie. from the Miss BC or Miss Teen Canada website). Thus it makes sense for the photographs to be largely the same.

Samsmachado (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Seven of the references are the same, i.e. not independent. Same picture in both, branding The rest are 1, profile, two, of other sources, wp:sec. The rest I've not looked at, much of a muchness. It adds up just about enough. 6 months if its not improved in coverage, I'll renominate. scope_creep^Talk 23:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Teen BC - even though she won a higher title, Miss Teen Canada, note arguments I made above that there is no existing page for the Miss Teen Canada that she won (again, the one when you link to Miss Teen Canada is a pageant that ended in the 90s and she won a different Miss Teen Canada in 2016). I struck out my keep !vote, redirect instead. --Wiki2008time (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet[reply]
• DeleteFailed WP:GNG. --03:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Richie Campbell (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Richie Campbell. Please elaborate as to why this fails WP:GNG. Samsmachado (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete winning a title that we do not even have an article on is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi John Pack Lambert. This issue is whether or not the article meets WP:BIO and/or WP:GNG. Could you please elaborate on whether or not you feel the article does these things. Your deletion comment provides no rational other than dismissing a claim to notability that, as ProcrasinatingReader said, is not really relevant to the discussion. Samsmachado (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The coverage is all routine local coverage, so it does not pass notability guidelines and the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for explaining. I would counter that by saying that the article cites 2 provincial sources and the 'local' sources are from different cities. Also WP:GEOSCOPE only applies for events. The coverage is however WP:ROUTINE for a pageant winner but as with scope, WP:ROUTINE applies for events and not people as is adressed at WP:NOTROUTINE. If this page was about an event, saying that the article cites only routine local sources would be a valid reason for deletion, but this page is a bio page. Please refer to WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Samsmachado (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• JPL, would you like to retract your delete comment or do you have relevent policies to cite? Samsmachado (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Local coverage does apply to people. For an award we really need coverage outside the province. Routine very much applies to coverage of people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, JPL. Which policy(ies) are you refering to? To quote WP:NOTROUTINE, "Additionally, bear in mind that WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) and therefore only applies to establishing notability about events. The primary guideline discussing notability of people is Wikipedia:Notability (people)." There is nothing on WP:BIO about local or routine coverage. Please cite policies instead of making broad claims about notability without proof. Samsmachado (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @John Pack Lambert. I'm more than happy to accept your rationale for deletion if you provide evidence from WP:GNG or WP:BIO about routine or local coverage. Alternatively, you can make another argument for deletion or retract your !vote. Samsmachado (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I still hold that the coverage is not such that it would constitute passing GNG and the awards do not lead to that either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I still hold that the coverage meets GNG and WP:BIO (per the sources I listed) and that, despite my asking politely several times, John Pack Lambert has yet to cite relevant deletion policies that back up their argument. As it stands, JPL's arguments for deletion are based solely in opinion and do not have anything to do with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Samsmachado (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My arguments are based on the long accepted fact you cannot use hyper local sourcing to justify keeping an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As outlined earlier, Reimer has been covered in provincial media (which likely meets the standards of WP:GEOSCOPE if it was a relevant policy which it is not). Also the rest of the coverage is not "hyper local" as it represents a plethora of local coverage all over the BC region (Saanich, Surrey, Vancouver, Langley, etc.) lasting over a year. As I have asked before, please cite relevant policies. Perhaps you are referring to WP:LOCAL which is an essay (not a deletion policy) but again, does not discuss biographies. If you're looking for an essay to read, I would reccommed WP:ITSLOCAL which clearly outlines why your argument for deletion is invalid. Samsmachado (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. forgot to ping you. John Pack Lambert. Awaiting your response in which you cite relevant policies. Samsmachado (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Appreciate the neutral notification to revisit this AfD, given my delete !vote above. Thank you for your clear argument and digging up those sources, as well. WP:ANYBIO isn't a guarantee, or a presumption, of notability, rather a suggestion that "coverage probably exists, go find it!" imo. Indeed, it states as much on the page. We do very frequently delete things that appear to 'meet' the additional criteria in WP:NBIO (there's a ongoing WT discussion regarding SNGs, tangential to this area, which may be of interest btw). I don't think a bunch of regional sources which are a couple of paragraphs at most which practically just state "Reimer won Miss Teen BC this year!" is significant coverage. It's pretty much WP:Run-of-the-mill; we don't give articles to every other pageant contest winner, year after year, especially when nothing else is likely to come of it. WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E applies as overriding exclusionary criteria. The vast majority of such individuals tend to not go further into pageantry. This individual is notable for one event in 2016, nothing since, and it's unlikely she will. She doesn't have the substantial coverage required for her own article. Hence I continue to support deletion, as we've done with previous individuals of this genre, and I believe she should be listed in the table at Miss Teen BC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per lack of notability past a single event and only local news sources covering said event. Wikipedia isn't a news source. If the person had of won other things in that the meantime that they were notability for then maybe I'd vote keep, but then this AfD wouldn't have been a thing either. Also, I agree with the above comment that it's not realistic to have an article for every one time minor pageant winner just because they are covered in multiple "provincial" sources. It's still to local and not enough to truly call the person notable. Audience matters and it's highly doubtful most of Wikipedia's audience cares about this person, at least not in a way that they can't find trivial information about them somewhere else if they want to. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1, Reimer won two pageants: Miss Teen BC and Miss Teen Canada. The article and its sources reflect this. How is this one event? Also, you may wish to check out WP:ITSLOCAL and WP:LOCALFAME; plenty of articles have esoteric subjects but that does not mean that the subjects are not notable. Samsmachado (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it was a typo. I meant two. Personally I don't feel like teen Canada is that high up there in notability. Not that I'm an expert on pageants, but you vote with what you know and I know for sports that teen tournament wins or involved in child sports leagues isn't at the point of notability yet. Also, I'm aware of its local and the other one, I have zero problem with that depending on the topic, but general auidence appeal does matter. Otherwise your getting into WP:NOTNP. Especially since its about winning a pageant. Its less about being "esoteric" and more about there being sustained coverage of the person. Along with how wipespread it is. Otherwise, its news and Wikipedia isn't a news source. You can't say sustained coverage and the need for regional/national sources doesn't matter "because obscure topic." Plenty of national sources cover obscure topics. If you look at the sources in the article for her winning teen Canada though they are all local/from a small area. That's the important thing. Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage from June 29, 2016 to March 8, 2017. Is 9 months too brief for WP:SUSTAINED? Re "You can't say sustained coverage and the need for regional/national sources doesn't matter "because obscure topic."": There is provincial coverage of Reimer which is regional. Further, WP:GEOSCOPE only applies to events and WP:ITSLOCAL says that you shouldn't base your argument for deletion on whether or not something is local unless international coverage is required by the relevant SNGs. If there is quality information on the subject (ie. enough to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:BASIC and there are no relevant WP:NOT arguments, then the article should exist. (The only WP:NOT argument anyone on this page has tried to make is 1 event, which doesn't apply as we have already acknowledged that there are 2 events for which Reimer has recieved coverage.) I'm not sure WP:NOTNP is relevant as no one is claiming the Reimer article is subject, an example of recentism, an exposé, or WP:SOAP. The sources meet GNG. Samsmachado (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wondering if Samsmachado is somehow connected to Shalom Reimer and therefore not capable of being neutral in this situation per WP:YOURSELF and WP:COI. Samsmachado's profile states this user is a Canadian student interested in theatre - Shalom Reimer's LinkedIn profile (which Samsmachado removed from the article in the edit history) indicates she is currently a BA student minoring in theatre. That may explain why Samsmachado is the only person arguing very insistently for several weeks to keep an article that nobody else agrees should be kept, even going so far as to ping people repeatedly and post on their talk pages to seek converting delete !votes to keep !votes. Consensus from 6 people seems to be to delete with 1 person who may be in WP:COI constantly badgering other editors despite Wikipedia:Once is enough. With an article that has been improperly relisted 3 times and has been in AfD for over 35 days, this needs to be an admin closure. Non-admin closures likely would lead to a deletion review initiated by Samsmachado. 174.1.78.77 (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with your assessment. I was actually in the middle of posting a more nuanced version of the same thing when you posted it. Even if there isn't a COI Samsmachado is seriously past the point of violating WP:BLUDGEON. Although the COI claim is extremely likely. I doubt they would be both Canadian's interested in theater and there would be an attempt to wipe references to it from her article if that wasn't the case. Messaging people on their pages is only something with a COI would do also. Anyway, I agree this should be an admin closure and perhaps Samsmachado vote should be struck out or ignored to if that's a thing. I know it is with sock puppets. I imagine it would extend to votes by people with undisclosed COIs that are canvasing and trying to get people to change their votes also. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never met Reimer in my life. I removed the LinkedIn reference because that's not a reliable source in my opinion as it is entirely self-published. I am a student at the University of King's College in Halifax and I am interested particualrly in feminist Canadian theatre and early modern theatre. This is evident through the pages I have created and the legitimate work I have done on this site. My name is pretty much my wiki user name (Samantha Machado, fyi. google me if you want.) but I don't feel that I should have to give my entire life's story to prove that I don't have a COI. Alledging that I am Reimer (as you cited WP:YOURSELF) is absurd and unfounded. I have never competed in a pageant in my life and have no intention of doing so. Further, I have enough respect as an editor not to involve myself in an article about myself should I ever become notable (unlikely, but you never know).

Also, you neglect to refer to Scope Creep's keep vote which acknowledges that GNG is met. I have repeatedly commented on this AfD because the same inapplicable arguments are being made: BLP1E and local coverage. Further, John Pack Lambert has been gaining a reputation around AfD for voting to !delete without rationale and without bothering to look at sources. I asked Procrasting Reader specifically to look at their vote because they had previously mentioned that their problem with the article was insufficient sourcing and I had added sources. Further, another of the !votes on this page violates WP:AADD by being WP:JUSTAPOLICY (Richie Campbell) and others were made before the article had sufficient sourcing added. (The article was originally made by a very new editor and did need some work.) I am involved in this article solely because I believe the sources constitute GNG and there is no WP:NOT, therefore the article should be kept. Thank you for alerting me to Once is enough as I had not come across that essay before. I will try not to badger other editors. I can see how my attempting to clarify this AfD discussion may have been harmful, but I do not regret asking for clarification from editors or bringing Procrastinating Reader back into the discussion. Also, thank you for pointing out WP:BLUDGEON as I had not read that before. I will keep this in mind in the future. Samsmachado (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I totally agree with you about John Pack Lambert. That wasn't who you were WP:BLUDGEONing with though and I'm not one of those people to just delete based on some crappy non-policy based reason. I just don't think you can combine local sources and call them a regional source. I think the guidelines are pretty explicit about that also. It's fine to disagree though. By all means call out people who don't vote based on policy though, because they totally deserve to be called out for it. Maybe just pick your battles better and don't call out people for the same thing more then once. Also, good job winning Teen Canada ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hey everyone she's not Shalom Reimer OK? I was just joking in my last message. Bad joke I know. We should get back on the topic of the AfD though. Adamant1 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - simply winning a beauty pageant is not enough to show notability. Congratulations, you've done a bang up job of showing she won a pageant. Too bad that, in and of itself, isn't enough to show notability. Oh, and don't bother arguing with me. You're not going to change my mind. John from Idegon (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E, and even that event not notable by our standards. —— § erial 10:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:1E, and WP:NOTNEWS. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 14:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Edit: 1E probably does not apply. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 14:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2: Taking my !vote back. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 14:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:ANYBIO. A search of her name only brings up passing mention of her winning the title and her linkedin page. There was a brief bio on her winning the title in a Canadian faith-based magazine. She is listed as a past Miss Teen Canada on the official web page of the Miss Canada organization. Miss Canada is a pageant with broad national coverage however Miss Teen Canada is their "junior" category which gets hardly any coverage other than passing mention. It's the equivalent of Miss America Outstanding Teen being a junior category compared to the nationally covered Miss America pageant in the US. Perhaps in the future she will have a notable career but as of now it's nowhere close to being notable. Blue Riband► 19:52, 16 July 2020 (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.