Deletion of Miss Georgia's Outstanding Teen

Comment: per .  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: 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  - {{tq|"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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CHAIN||WP:BRANCH)

Comment: per . Too large for one single anyway
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: 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  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  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  or  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 .  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT||WP:SPINOUT||WP:BRANCH||WP:CHAIN||WP:NORG)