Deletion of Miss Kentucky Teen USA

Comment: otherwise '''Merge to Miss Teen USA''' — There appears to be third party sources, though the they may be focused more on individuals than the pageant itself; it would be helpful to find sources that describe the pageant itself and discuss it in detail. If the list is objectionable, it could be culled, but the article seems like a target for improvement, not deletion. At the risk of , I'm not seeing what make's Kentucky's pageant less notable than the other 49; it has more references than, for instance, Miss Minnesota Teen USA. If this deletion goes through, I suspect it may impact the viability of those articles. Additionally, nomination suggests merge as the path forward, not deletion: "This topic is best covered on the main article on this business
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Lists of winners are fine.  Wikipedia has many, many such list articles and there is nothing "indiscriminate" about them.  There is also no requirement that the people named in the list be individually notable.  Indeed, the selection criteria at  explicitly permit lists of non-notable people, so long as the list is intended to be a complete listing of the relevant people.  And that's exactly what we have here.  Also of note, the existence of this particular kind of list has been accepted -- twice -- in the deletion nominations for Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants, where both nominations closed as "keep".  And of course, no one here has offered any reason why the state pageants associated with the Miss USA organization should be subjected to treatment that is any different than that given to the pageants associated with the Miss America organization.It's good to see that some people are amenable to |alternatives to deletion via a merger into a single article.  But there's a big problem with that approach.  The by-state articles being spunout of Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants have shown that complete sourcing of such lists requires, on average, about two sources for every entry in the list.  So let's do a little arithmetic.  The Miss Teen pageants have been around for about 35 years, so that'll be about 70 references per pageant.  And there are 51 pageants.  So the proposal here is to perform a massive merge that would create a list of more than 1,500 entries supported by more than 3,000 references.  Does anyone here think that such an article wouldn't be so huge as to call for an immediate invoking of ?  And wouldn't the spinout be best done on a state-by-state basis?  But that's exactly what we already have here.I also must comment on the nominator's 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.  And 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: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:CSC||WP:ATD||WP:SPINOUT||WP:BRANCH||WP:CHAIN||WP:NORG)

Comment: As per BabbaQ and the fact that the nominator is |being disruptive
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)