The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. I was able to find several articles on her, but they were all over 10 years old and related to her having been Miss Utah 2006. Per discussion on the Miss Utah 2008 deletion page ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Barclay) being Miss Utah in and of itself is not notable. The other article highlights about going to college, being a supporting actress, etc. are not notable. Jacobkhed ( talk) 21:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]. I have reviewed Miss Utah devoted to God, diabetes research (Salt Lake Tribune, 2006), Miss Utah hopes to be example of traditional values (Daily Herald, 2007), Miss Utah not afraid to be herself (Deseret News, 2007), and Standing her ground on the national stage (Associated Press, 2008), which are all in-depth coverage focused on her that can help expand the article. Per WP:RSP, Deseret News
is considered generally reliable for local news. [...] The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed.Also, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY,
once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage, and WP:GNG appears supported by the coverage noted above. Per the beauty pageant participants SNG, there is discussion of the types of pageant wins generally presumed notable, but it also states
Subjects that do not meet the pageant-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.Notability is not a subjective assessment of importance. Beccaynr ( talk) 13:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.The 2008 AP coverage is in-depth and focused on her, including biographical information. It does not appear to objectively fit the definition of "trivial" as described in the guideline. As to WP:SUSTAINED, this guideline points to WP:BLP1E, which discourages articles on people if they meet all three of the listed factors, but she does not appear to have been covered in the context of a single event, because the coverage includes her Miss Utah win (e.g. the non-local, 2006 state-level coverage from the Salt Lake Tribune, which also includes in-depth biographical information), and her noteworthy participation in the Miss America pageant, which received non-trivial national news coverage from the AP and in-depth 2007 state-level coverage from Deseret News. Her role in these events also appear to be well-documented, and she does not appear to have been WP:LOWPROFILE, so WP:BLP1E does not appear to apply. The article needs revision to reflect information from the sources, but WP:DINC. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
contextin this policy seems to bolster how the depth of information available can provide the necessary context. With regard to WP:TABLOID, which redirected me to WP:NOTNEWS, there is also an emphasis on how
events must be put into encyclopedic context. Within the same section of the policy, there is also WP:NOTGOSSIP, e.g.
Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person, but in this instance, I think an objective assessment indicates she received national news coverage as a role model. Beccaynr ( talk) 13:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. I was able to find several articles on her, but they were all over 10 years old and related to her having been Miss Utah 2006. Per discussion on the Miss Utah 2008 deletion page ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Barclay) being Miss Utah in and of itself is not notable. The other article highlights about going to college, being a supporting actress, etc. are not notable. Jacobkhed ( talk) 21:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]. I have reviewed Miss Utah devoted to God, diabetes research (Salt Lake Tribune, 2006), Miss Utah hopes to be example of traditional values (Daily Herald, 2007), Miss Utah not afraid to be herself (Deseret News, 2007), and Standing her ground on the national stage (Associated Press, 2008), which are all in-depth coverage focused on her that can help expand the article. Per WP:RSP, Deseret News
is considered generally reliable for local news. [...] The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed.Also, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY,
once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage, and WP:GNG appears supported by the coverage noted above. Per the beauty pageant participants SNG, there is discussion of the types of pageant wins generally presumed notable, but it also states
Subjects that do not meet the pageant-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.Notability is not a subjective assessment of importance. Beccaynr ( talk) 13:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.The 2008 AP coverage is in-depth and focused on her, including biographical information. It does not appear to objectively fit the definition of "trivial" as described in the guideline. As to WP:SUSTAINED, this guideline points to WP:BLP1E, which discourages articles on people if they meet all three of the listed factors, but she does not appear to have been covered in the context of a single event, because the coverage includes her Miss Utah win (e.g. the non-local, 2006 state-level coverage from the Salt Lake Tribune, which also includes in-depth biographical information), and her noteworthy participation in the Miss America pageant, which received non-trivial national news coverage from the AP and in-depth 2007 state-level coverage from Deseret News. Her role in these events also appear to be well-documented, and she does not appear to have been WP:LOWPROFILE, so WP:BLP1E does not appear to apply. The article needs revision to reflect information from the sources, but WP:DINC. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
contextin this policy seems to bolster how the depth of information available can provide the necessary context. With regard to WP:TABLOID, which redirected me to WP:NOTNEWS, there is also an emphasis on how
events must be put into encyclopedic context. Within the same section of the policy, there is also WP:NOTGOSSIP, e.g.
Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person, but in this instance, I think an objective assessment indicates she received national news coverage as a role model. Beccaynr ( talk) 13:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)