Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Georgia'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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Georgia's Outstanding Teen

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

Local preliminary round run by a franchise of a national pageant business. Should be redirected back to the parent organization per WP:BRANCH and WP:CHAIN Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep State not local pageant, plenty of coverage of pageant & titleholders in reliable sources. Discussion should have been postponed until Alabama & Washington came to a conclusion --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Local to Georgia. McDonalds Georgia does not get a page either but it is a much bigger more substantial business than this one. Adding separate pages for franchise holders is a policy violation and essentially a form of corporate spam. Legacypac (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:55, 11 February 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 is becoming too large for a single article. 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) 23:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SPINOUT. Too large for one single anyway.BabbaQ (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We managed to survive without this as a seperate article until two weeks ago. We also manage to cover most of the state feeder pageants within the main article without creating pages on the non-notable Wap:BRANCHes. What changed in the last two weeks that made the top need to expand from 1 page to 52 pages? Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia managed to survive in 2004 with much less editors than today. But is today amuch better Wikipedia with the inclusion of many more articles and editor.BabbaQ (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants easily passed AFDs in 2015 and 2007. At the time, the article was a lot smaller because there had been fewer titleholders crowned up to that time. The article as it stood before it started to be split (in October, not two weeks ago) was becoming unworkably long [1] (169 references), and after Legacypac started (erroneously, in my opinion) started tagging it as OR there was a small discussion about splitting the article out. @Mariacricket: then started the process. There were two AFDs launched soon after, both of which ended as no consensus.[2] [3]. Hope you enjoy the history lesson. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable contest in its own right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? And how?BabbaQ (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That we've managed to survive without this article until 2 weeks ago may very well be the most ridiculous rationale for proposed deletion I've encountered, and that's quite a statement, as I've seen some really stupid shit here. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The urgency to "spinout" 52 or so articles from one about two weeks ago is strange. One page was working fine. Legacypac (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable state-level teen pageant; WP:SPINOUT does not apply as the subject is non-notable. Coverage is routine and / or hyper-local. The article itself is nothing but a list of nn winners, not meeting WP:LISTN either. In general, this is an example of WP:NOT: an indiscriminate amount of information that fails notability guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine coverage, non-notable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete State level feeder pageant. No consensus that winners of national level pageant are notable. The winners of the these state level feeders are not nor is the pageant. This is effectivly a franchise and they do not get their own articles because "...franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable...". Also see WP:BRANCH - "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Jbh ^Talk 03:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I've already recommended that the article be "kept". Right now, I'll comment on two of the arguments put forth by others. First, nothing in WP:SPINOUT calls for a separate test of notability for each sub-list spunout from an overly-large parent list. To those who suggest otherwise, I ask that they point out the language in WP:SPINOUT that leads them to that conclusion. A difficult challenge, I know, because that language simply isn't there. And when we look to the parent article, Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants, we see that it has already been tested at deletion nominations -- twice -- and has survived those nominations as "keep".
And what are we to make of this novel theory that the state pageant is simply a "branch" of the national competition. Nothing in either WP:BRANCH or WP:CHAIN even hints at the possibility that the provisions are applicable to structured systems of organized competition. If the nominator truly wants to expand the scope of those provisions in this manner, there needs to be a centralised discussion held at WP:NORG. And don't forget to notify all of the WikiProjects that deal with league sports, because this novel theory could be used to say that individual teams are merely "branches" of the leagues to which they belong. Would we then call for deletion of our article on the Philadelphia Keystones on the theory that it was merely a "branch" of the Union Association? Would we do the same with Chicago Whales, because that team was just a "branch" of the Federal League? And that's just two of several examples from one sport (baseball). Can anyone here estimate how many other articles would be subject to deletion simply because the nominator has floated a novel theory untested by any centralised discussion? Considering that there is nothing in this novel theory that would limit its scope to any particular type of competition, I suspect that the number would run into the hundreds, if not thousands. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pageants are for profit businesses and this is not a sports event, more a modeling event. The idea it is a sport is novel. Anyway, Many sports like Little League have numerous branches that run events leading to a national event, but those branches don't get articles. Same with National Spelling Bee preliminaries. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I won't dispute your observation that the pageants might be run as for-profit entities, but I note that this didn't factor into my analysis of the rules on WP:SPINOUT, nor did it factor into my concerns about expanding the reach of WP:BRANCH and WP:CHAIN. And as for your observation that "the idea [pageantry] is a sport is novel", you're quite correct. And it might have been a relevant observation had I actually made that claim. But all I did was describe both forms of entertainment as examples of structured systems of organized competition. Which they are.

Your citing of Little League Baseball might have been ill-advised. There are, in fact, a goodly number of Little League articles that give lists of winners at the sub-national level. Just a few are: Little League World Series (Northwest Region), Little League World Series (Central Region), and Little League World Series 1957-2000 (West Region). There are others, and they all serve to bolster my basic position -- lists of winners are fine, even for teenagers and even at the sub-national level. And this is the same position that the community reached -- twice -- when it "kept" the parent article with its 50+ lists. The only issue here continues to be whether hosting all of those lists in a single article would make it so large that WP:SPINOUT is appropriate. And an article whose lists contain more than 600 entries, collectively requiring more than 1,000 references for complete sourcing, is certainly large enough to invoke WP:SPINOUT.

Thanks again for the response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:14, 25 February 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.