539:
many possible reasons an article can fail to be notable - you should state why you think it is so in order to make your argument strong. Saying something like "insufficient sourcing to prove notability" while barely more words is a much better argument. An even better argument is "Current sourcing doesn't prove notability, and my searches didn't turn up anything either" is even better (if true). As to my merge !vote, I do not have to prove notability - content inclusion is not a matter of notability, but judgement. There is no policy to point to tell me material X is or is not appropriate in article Y. (But if you need one, see
520:
whatsoever, I understand AfD arguments enough to know the implications of what you're arguing. Similarly, when I link to criteria and say that it does not pass, you know what that means. Assuming you're not really looking for me to prove a negative, and since you're presenting no counter-argument yourself, citing Cirt is just an empty attempt to try to discredit a !vote you disagree with on the basis of using fewer words. --—
445:. I note also, that the two recent delete arguments are exceptionally weak (and the others preceded the current version of the article). One is flat out wrong (she won the adult version of the pageant this year, not the teen version, and no one is arguing that is automatic notability anyway) and the other is
505:
Are you looking for me to prove a negative? Otherwise it's not a complicated thing such that it requires I write out what would effectively be a copy of the page I linked (just as you only linked -- rather than retyped -- that non-policy non-guideline userspace essay). Insufficient sources exist. Not
347:
This article subject has achieved notability by winning pageant titles in two different years. There are a total of five references which include university, news sites and other sites that cover pageant happenings. With sources across numerous independent reliable sources this article subject passes
538:
I'm not looking for you to do anything, nor am I criticizing. I am sorry if you saw the comment that way. I am telling you that saying "not notable" (or in your case "fails BIO") is a weak argument because it doesn't say why you feel it fails. (Saying "keep is notable" is equally weak.) There are
226:
mentions in a
University newsletter (name and competition only as part of a list), a commercial blog (which has spammed WP extensively for links), a short blurb on an AM radio station site, a captioned photo in a series of photos for SeattlePI, and the sponsoring company's website as a mention on a
680:
article with improved sourcing from a variety of reliable third-party and primary sources to address any concerns of verifiability or notability. I respectfully request that any interested editor review the article as it currently stands and consider revising their !vote in this discussion. -
519:
to justify a merge, but that, too, is "just saying". You haven't argued your point at all, you're just saying it's good enough. Now, to be clear, I didn't take issue with this until you've targeted the integrity of my own !vote. That's because even though you haven't backed it up with anything
239:. All the info that can be gathered on the subject is already in the article, most of which is already in the articles about the pageants she was in. Further, no Miss Wyoming so far has been notable enough to justify a stand alone article. There was consensus to delete this article as a batch
441:- The correct sourcing is rather weak and the article has minimal content. In other words, notability is possible, but unproven. However, that doesn't mean the subject can't be covered at a broader article and the current article content (4 sentences) would not be undue weight at
565:
Unless I'm missing something there have been only minor changes to the article since nomination for deletion: punctuation fixes, a place of birth and a new category. I'll reiterate my Delete !vote: the secondary, independent source coverage amounts to photo captions.
515:. You have said the sourcing is not good but merge it anyway without giving any basis whatsoever for doing so (unless we are to assume that merge is the default, which it certainly is not). Perhaps you meant to say that sourcing is
506:
sure why you need more. It's striking that you found it necessary to criticize other people's !votes as part of your own argument when your !vote, while using more words, barely even alludes to a policy-backed rationale. Part one:
191:
89:
84:
486:
you feel the article in question meets/doesn't meet the criteria. AfDs are not votes - achieving consensus generally needs actual discussion, which "k/d per XYZ" doesn't contribute to in any meaningful way.
510:
In other words, you're admitting the sourcing stinks and are not even claiming that sources exist outside of what's cited. Then in part 2 you "just say" (in the sense you have accused me of "just saying")
144:
614:
2015 titles, "one event" concerns do not apply. Nominator misrepresents the closure of his mass-deletion attempt as it was originally "keep" before he personally reverted it. -
464:
Saying someone fails e.g. GNG/BIO is shorthand. Consider the link to be a transclusion of those criteria. No opposition to selective merging to the contest article, though. --—
185:
591:
287:
267:
78:
307:
151:
513:
that doesn't mean the subject can't be covered at a broader article and the current article content (4 sentences) would not be undue weight at Miss
Wyoming USA
482:
Anyone can say "keep per ABC" or "delete per DEF". As my link explains, doing so is a very weak argument because it does nothing to explain
117:
112:
17:
121:
543:- content should be preserved when possible and it is possible here, even if notability is not proven for a stand-alone article. --
711:
690:
666:
652:
623:
575:
552:
529:
496:
473:
429:
408:
389:
360:
339:
319:
299:
279:
259:
60:
508:
The correct sourcing is rather weak and the article has minimal content. In other words, notability is possible, but unproven.
104:
600:
206:
173:
632:
369:
588:
730:
40:
404:
167:
242:
but they were kept only on the basis that the Admin preferrred they be relisted individually. Sister articles
594:
330:: the two references in the article that aren't primary do not have significant coverage of this individual.
356:
240:
163:
726:
607:
379:
247:
36:
540:
597:
243:
213:
400:
223:
707:
662:
648:
548:
522:
492:
466:
454:
422:
255:
199:
108:
232:
686:
619:
352:
236:
315:
295:
275:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
725:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
611:
442:
438:
179:
699:
603:
446:
417:
349:
228:
250:(contestants in the same year, same pageant company) were recently in deleted separately.
222:
Article originally created by a banned SOCK. Now extra sourcing added consisting of short
703:
677:
658:
644:
571:
544:
488:
450:
335:
251:
100:
66:
682:
615:
311:
291:
271:
138:
643:
Please, in particular dicuss the new links and whether they create notability.--
53:
635:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
372:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
567:
331:
399:
Winnings in teen pageants should not be used to establish notability.
587:
as sufficient references from reliable third-party sources exist (
719:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
134:
130:
126:
198:
90:
Articles for deletion/Caroline Scott (3rd nomination)
85:
Articles for deletion/Caroline Scott (2nd nomination)
657:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
378:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
212:
676:: I have significantly rewritten and expanded the
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
733:). No further edits should be made to this page.
702:pass per the research work done by Dravecky.
8:
306:Note: This debate has been included in the
288:list of Fashion-related deletion discussions
286:Note: This debate has been included in the
268:list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions
266:Note: This debate has been included in the
308:list of People-related deletion discussions
305:
285:
265:
602:, etc.) to push this article across the
75:
512:
507:
606:threshold. As the winner of both the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
79:Articles for deletion/Caroline Scott
73:
24:
1:
712:03:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
691:03:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
667:07:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
653:07:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
624:22:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
576:02:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
553:16:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
530:22:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
497:20:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
474:23:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
430:20:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
409:19:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
390:04:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
361:02:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
61:00:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
340:23:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
320:14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
300:14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
280:14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
260:14:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
750:
722:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
72:AfDs for this article:
608:Miss Wyoming Teen USA
641:Relisting comment:
248:Elizabeth Cardillo
48:The result was
669:
401:John Pack Lambert
392:
322:
302:
282:
741:
724:
656:
638:
636:
612:Miss Wyoming USA
527:
525:
471:
469:
443:Miss Wyoming USA
439:Miss Wyoming USA
427:
425:
387:
383:
377:
375:
373:
244:Natasha Martinez
217:
216:
202:
154:
142:
124:
58:
34:
749:
748:
744:
743:
742:
740:
739:
738:
737:
731:deletion review
720:
670:
631:
629:
523:
521:
467:
465:
423:
421:
393:
385:
381:
368:
366:
159:
150:
115:
99:
96:
94:
81:
70:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
747:
745:
736:
735:
715:
714:
693:
678:Caroline Scott
655:
639:
628:
627:
626:
581:
580:
579:
578:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
533:
532:
524:Rhododendrites
500:
499:
477:
476:
468:Rhododendrites
459:
458:
432:
424:Rhododendrites
411:
376:
365:
364:
363:
342:
324:
323:
303:
283:
220:
219:
156:
101:Caroline Scott
95:
93:
92:
87:
82:
77:
74:
71:
69:
67:Caroline Scott
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
746:
734:
732:
728:
723:
717:
716:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
694:
692:
688:
684:
679:
675:
672:
671:
668:
664:
660:
654:
650:
646:
642:
637:
634:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
598:
595:
592:
589:
586:
583:
582:
577:
573:
569:
564:
563:
554:
550:
546:
542:
537:
536:
535:
534:
531:
526:
518:
514:
509:
504:
503:
502:
501:
498:
494:
490:
485:
481:
480:
479:
478:
475:
470:
463:
462:
461:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
433:
431:
426:
419:
415:
412:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:
394:
391:
388:
374:
371:
362:
358:
354:
353:WordSeventeen
351:
346:
343:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
304:
301:
297:
293:
289:
284:
281:
277:
273:
269:
264:
263:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
238:
234:
230:
227:list. Fails
225:
215:
211:
208:
205:
201:
197:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
165:
162:
161:Find sources:
157:
153:
149:
146:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
721:
718:
695:
673:
640:
630:
584:
516:
483:
434:
413:
396:
367:
344:
327:
221:
209:
203:
195:
188:
182:
176:
170:
160:
147:
55:
49:
47:
31:
28:
541:WP:PRESERVE
517:good enough
186:free images
224:WP:ROUTINE
727:talk page
704:Ejgreen77
659:Ymblanter
645:Ymblanter
610:2010 and
545:ThaddeusB
489:ThaddeusB
451:ThaddeusB
312:• Gene93k
292:• Gene93k
272:• Gene93k
252:Legacypac
233:WP:NMODEL
37:talk page
729:or in a
683:Dravecky
633:Relisted
616:Dravecky
416:- Fails
370:Relisted
237:WP:BIO1E
145:View log
39:or in a
192:WP refs
180:scholar
118:protect
113:history
700:WP:GNG
674:UPDATE
604:WP:GNG
447:WP:JNN
418:WP:BIO
414:Delete
397:Delete
386:MERICA
350:WP:GNG
328:Delete
229:WP:GNG
164:Google
122:delete
698:as a
435:Merge
207:JSTOR
168:books
152:Stats
139:views
131:watch
127:links
56:Nakon
16:<
708:talk
696:Keep
687:talk
663:talk
649:talk
620:talk
585:Keep
572:talk
568:Vrac
549:talk
493:talk
455:talk
449:. --
420:. —
405:talk
382:ORTH
357:talk
345:Keep
336:talk
332:Vrac
316:talk
296:talk
276:talk
256:talk
246:and
200:FENS
174:news
135:logs
109:talk
105:edit
50:keep
528:\\
484:why
472:\\
437:to
428:\\
214:TWL
143:– (
710:)
689:)
665:)
651:)
622:)
599:,
596:,
593:,
590:,
574:)
551:)
495:)
487:--
407:)
359:)
338:)
318:)
310:.
298:)
290:.
278:)
270:.
258:)
235:,
231:,
194:)
137:|
133:|
129:|
125:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
52:.
706:(
685:(
661:(
647:(
618:(
570:(
547:(
491:(
457:)
453:(
403:(
384:A
380:N
355:(
334:(
314:(
294:(
274:(
254:(
218:)
210:·
204:·
196:·
189:·
183:·
177:·
171:·
166:(
158:(
155:)
148:·
141:)
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.