Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corrin Stellakis

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrin Stellakis

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

Article was deprodded with explanation "title is notable". That may be but as we have seen previously that doesn't automatically confer notability. When I went to expand & reference this article I was able to find almost no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish notability --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete beauty queens need sources to back up articles, and these are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to you, articles on women should be held to stricter than usual standards at Wikipedia? gidonb (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Gidonb: can you please show us where she there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Extensive searching when I copyedited this showed up nothing more extensive than what is already in the article which are passing mentions at best. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example: half this article 1, 3 paragraphs, 3 paragraphs in mixed coverage, 6 paragraphs here, 2 out of 5 paragraphs in mixed coverage, half this article 2, entire article, and that's just the beginning.

I saw most of those when copyediting the article - generally in past AFDs of this sort of minor local coverage from small local newspapers as you have provided enough isn't enough. They're mainly fluff pieces. But we'll let the community decide. I'm not deletionist by nature but I think this article should be held to the same standards as so many other pageant titleholders who have been deleted with more coverage available (albeit in local papers etc)than you have provided above. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each article should be judged on its own merits. As I said this is just the tip of the iceberg and all significant coverage. I hope people respect the work of their fellow Wikipedians enough to look through all sources. gidonb (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the Vietnam magazine is national in that nation's capital. Vietnam has 96 million residents, that's almost a third of the US population and larger than Germany, France, UK, etc. This is website #14 in the entire country of Vietnam! Maybe withdraw the nomination? gidonb (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt the content of that Vietnamese fluff piece ("her dress broke!") is enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG but again the community can decide that--- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A little drama also gets covered among all the rest. There were 2 significant articles/coverages in the same magazine in Vietnam in the short list above and not as implied (which was already a new version after it had been supposedly all local)! There is a total of 13 national articles from Vietnam about Stellakis. About half of these underwrite her notability. I am puzzled how your searches were so "extensive" but missed all the national and substantial coverage. gidonb (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since article subject meets GNG user stood correct to remove the prod. Now when I remove such a label I also include references to justify this. Clearly this was not done and the references in the article are insufficient to prove notability. As a result it looks like prodder, on the other side, sticks to an unsubstantiated opinion that there is a case for deletion, while a simple Google News search supplies enough valid references to meet the WP:GNG. See my exchange above with the prodder/nominator for changing versions, confusion on what is out there, and distraction from the main coverage. gidonb (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the nominator for sending me a notice about the AFD because I deprodded it. Have waited to see other's comments and it is clear that Gidonb has found more than enough substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are more than local (although local is allowed) so that WP:BASIC is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources have been shown, including some from the U.S., some from Vietnam, and some from the Philippines. Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2017 (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.