Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss New Hampshire's Outstanding Teen

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss New Hampshire's Outstanding Teen

Miss New Hampshire's Outstanding Teen (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)

There is some coverage (very little) of individual pageants, but no coverage of the organization itself. The massive amount of poorly sourced information about minors who are not notable is troubling here. John from Idegon (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is still a sizable portion of the USA population who enjoys pageants. And there are multiple reliable sources from local communities. Regionalism/localism and rural communities are experiencing a resurgence in importance too.Knox490 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep significant third party references establish notability --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per third party sources.BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- an unremarkable pageant. Article exists for promotional purposes. I'd be happy to be convinced, if WP:SIGCOV on this event is presented in the course of this AfD. Stating that a sizable portion of the USA population who enjoys pageants and significant third party references establish notability without citing the sources is not helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough coverage of this state level teen pageant to justify an article. Knox490 needs to stop confusing themself for a substantial portion of the US population.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacking in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. The reliable citations contain trivial (if any) mentions about the pageant and say more about Miss New Hampshire and its contestants. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants#New Hampshire Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by merge you mean taking the BLP violating content from this article and adding to the BLP violating material at the target article, hell no. John from Idegon (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not. I merely meant to add the content from the separate page so that it matches the other sections of Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants. Do not keep the BLP violating material, merely add enough so that it matches Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants#California in respects to information. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:SPINOUT. If there is concern that the Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants article should not exist, then let that page be nominated for deletion. But given that the article does exist, and given further that it reached a "keep" decision when nominated in 2015, it is now time to face the fact that it would be too large if it hosted the results for every state and every year. Spinning out separate articles for separate sub-topics is appropriate, and using "by state" as the criterion is a reasonable way to do it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:23, 7 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.