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. MBisanz ^talk 18:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Kelly George

Kelly George (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Compared to some beauty pageant winners, we actually have a fairly substantial article on George, but it is not enough to indicate she is notable. Winning Miss Arkansas USA is not enough on its own to make someone notable. George's military career falls far below the notability level for military personnel. Her braodcasting career falls well below the notability level for braodcasters. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Miss Arkansas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect name to Miss Arkansas USA, which apparently is what she is most known; otherwise, not seeing notability for stand alone article. Kierzek ( talk) 18:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- I advocate deletion in this case, as a redirect would "define" Ms George's career and life accomplishments as strictly a pageant winner. She also had a career in the military and TV. None of these make her individually notable, but I find the focus of the redirect to be to the pageant somewhat demeaning. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater ( talk) 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep as per sources already in article such as this in-depth and this in-depth but there's not much else.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep as per Tomwsulcer and references added today --- PageantUpdater ( talk) 11:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- the sources presented are insufficient, IMO. The first one is mostly commentary, relating to Ms Geoge's win from various people (routine coverage):

• "You have to be a good role model in the Air Force and as Miss Arkansas USA," she said. "The key is to embody all the qualities of a healthy lifestyle and be a good role model and represent yourself and the state well." Lieutenant George said winning is important because "this breaks stereotypes about women in pageants and women in the military." "It's such an honor for her to have won," said Jeff Gilliam, Miss Arkansas USA production director and emcee. "She represents the state and our nation and this is as much of an honor for us as it is for her."

The second article is slightly better, but it's a local news outlet, so I don't feel it establishes notability either, nor in combination with what's already in the article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Can you please point me towards the policy that discounts local news outlets? I've searched WP:RS and WP:BIO with no luck. --- PageantUpdater ( talk) 23:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Being familiar with the likes of the Steling Heights Sentry I would be hard pressed to convince many of these free circulation papers would pass any guidelines on being a reliable source. One possible way that a person can be shown to be a notable academic is if they have been quoted as an expert in the news media, but the guidelines explicitly disallows local news media. Purplebackpack for one has attacked articles on buildings as only being sourced to local media, although the specific case was a building in Medford, Oregon covered by media in Portland, Oregon, which other people correctly argued is not a case of local coverage at all. We may need to have better guidelines on this, but I still think even the Macomb Daily having an article entitled "local writer gets their vampire novel published" (I could be off on the title, but that was the subject of the article, it came from about 20 years ago) should not count as a source worth establishing the notability of the subject. Of course, being familiar as I am with the Macomb Daily I am hesitant in claiming that any article originating from the Macomb Daily staff should count as a source that could establish notability. There may be some exceptions, but I know the article I mentioned should never count towards the notability of its subject (whose name I have also forgotten in the ensuing 20 years, but I think I actually forgot it 10 minutes after seeing the article). I have to admit I have no idea how to start a discussion on this issue. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep  This topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time as per evidence from reliable sources (WP:N nutshell).  The TV-anchor career alone does this, so if someone wants to merge there are multiple targets, but keeping this standalone seems to be the most practical.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per unscintillating. Pwolit iets ( talk) 10:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment to above: "attention of the world at large" does not seem to apply since the coverage is mostly local. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Is there a policy basis to your comment?  If so, what is it?  Thank you, Unscintillating ( talk) 01:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• WP:MILL offers advice on dealing with run-of-the-mill articles, such as:

• Examine the reference, sources, and external links provided. Do they meet WP:RS guidelines? Do they come from international, national, or local sources?

K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Miss Arkansas USA as a valid search term. The sources provided are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:03, 10 September 2016 (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.