Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kandice Pelletier - Wikipedia

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:01Z

Kandice Pelletier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Pelletier is notable not only for appearing in two editions of The Amazing Race but as a state title holder in the Miss America pageant network. "Cruft" is not a criterion for deletion. Otto4711 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Miss America state titleholder Miss New York 2005 and contestant at Miss America 2006. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how can appearing twice in a minor reality tv show be considered "notable"? --MacRusgail 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • She is notable outside the show. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - what has she done other than appear on tv and strut a stage? --MacRusgail 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • She has won a state-level beauty pageant, represented her state for an entire year as Miss New York, and has competed in the Miss America pageant. Beauty pageant titleholders who have held state titles and competed in Miss America, Miss USA or their Teen counterparts are generally considered notable. Add to this her participation on the Amazing Race, and she quite clearly meets the criteria. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead for an example of a reality tv contestant who didn't even quite win her state title but was considered notable. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - none of this makes her internationally notable. She will be forgotten within the decade. At best her bio should be merged into the main article IMHO. --MacRusgail 00:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment searching the news archive without the terms "amazing" "race" in itself turns up eighteen sources.[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PageantUpdater (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
          • People don't need to be internationally notable - just nationally. If they had to be, most people from developing countries wouldn't even get in. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tend to argue for including most verifiable stuff, but not bios. We have far to many, we can't police them, and they are so unremarkable that no-one is watching, and they end up upsetting the subject at no gain to creating a great encyclopedia. There are 51 'Miss x state's created every year - that's hundreds of gorgeous non-entities in the US alone. Nothing else here is notable - put her on a list somewhere, and delete the article.--Doc^g 00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Wow, what is going on here... please do your research before nominating. multiple independent nontrivial sources. —siroχo 00:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have read the links. Nomination retained. --MacRusgail 01:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PageantUpdater. Maxamegalon2000 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PageantUpdater and Otto4711. Notability is established by the multiple, independent, non-trivial references. And since when is "cruft" a reason to delete?! All "cruft" means is WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:IDONTKNOWIT. For most people, microbiology, astronomy, and quantum physics articles can be considered "cruft" because they know little to nothing about the subjects. -- Black Falcon 01:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not a case of "I don't like it", so much as "I've never heard of them", and probably in a few years' time never will again. The names and personalities mean absolutely nothing to me. --MacRusgail 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hence Black Falcon's second link to WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Please familiarize yourself with the sites that so many editors have linked throughout your user talk page, and the AFD pages. —siroχo 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets guidelines at WP:BIO and has done more of note than merely participate as a reality show contestant. I see no reason why winning a notable state-wide pageant is not a notable acheivement. Agent 86 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Docg --ImpartialCelt 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PageantUpdater, to whom I'll defer where significance of beauty pageants is concerned. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article subject is notable in at least 2 areas, pageantry and reality television. As regards the nominator’s comments on this page: Notability is not defined as "people that the nominator has heard of". There are certainly tens (or hundreds) of thousands of bios in this encyclopedia that millions of people have never heard of. Ask a typical 50 year old woman if she has heard of the thousands of sportsmen in the encyclopedia. Ask a typical 20 something male if he has heard of the authors of the 18th century. Ask anyone in Europe if they have heard of every state congressperson in the United States. The guideline for notability is outlined here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! Non-trivial sources! ConDem^Talk 04:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as clearly meeting WP:BIO and sourcing requirements. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She does not constitute a serious subject, which would be all right with me if she was at least an enduring subject, but there's no reason at all to believe she'll be of enduring interest even a few years from now. Noroton 14:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is notable. --evrik ^(talk) 14:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just don't see local beauty pageant winners as notable. The Amazing Race is on CBS so I discount their reports on contestants as cross-promotional, not non-trivial. I'm left with the Georgia State Assembly resolution congratulating her, something they've routinely done every year with every such winner. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 18:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is not just a local beauty pageant titleholder but a state titleholder who has competed at the national Miss America pageant. There are numerous sources documenting her - some even before she won her state title - [2] [3] [4] [5] . What more do you need? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I mentioned it up above but just so this stands out: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead for an AFD nom on a reality tv contestant who didn't even win a state title but was kept at AFD. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep where in the criterion for notability does it say someone has to be internationally famous for them to be notable? let's follow the criteria as written, per WP Bio winning a notable contest, being a ranking contestant in a notable national contest and appearing on television all could make her notable in and of themselves, taken together she is clearly notable. These types of articles I do think point to a problem with over-inclusiveness in WP:BIO, something I'd certainly be up for helping with, but I still think they should be followed until superceeded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wintermut3 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep and recommend speedy close the nominator has listed multiple AfD saying "Reality TV cruft not notable!" Poor reasoning and I would suspect bad faith nominations. Wooyi 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and speedy close per Wooyi. I'm hearing axe-grinding! —xanderer 23:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think wikipedia benefits from inclusion rather than exclusion. The more information included the better (within reason, of course). You just can't pretend to know what a wikipedia user will find useful. I can envision someone writing a column about the Reality TV craze 10 years from now finding this information very useful. Plus her entry will already be half-done when she marries an aging governor in fifteen years. xanderer 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep clearly meets WP:BIO and is notable outside show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep State holder of a Miss America title indicates notablity outside any reality TV show. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, meets WP:BIO. - Denny 05:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep State holder of a Miss America title! Donaldd23 02:28, 26 February 2007 (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.