Deletion of Alexis Railsback (3rd nomination)

Comment: nbsp; BLP has drawn attention as part of the effort to deflect attention from the corpus of evidence.&nbsp; But WP:BLP is one of the few policies that is supported by the external force of law at Wikipedia.&nbsp; A search on  shows only one mention at AfD.&nbsp; You'd think with the level of concern that there would have been many AfDs closed as BLP violations, but the inference is that our content contributors and bots together with a supported policy are doing their job.&nbsp; Note that the twice-cited  explains why the essay voiding harm is an essay and not part of the BLP policy.&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL9||WP:PSEUDO||WP:A)

Comment: Unscintillating; Thanks for your input. This is a compliment and not a slur. When I receive a rebuttal to something that is not just a whim reply I look at it closely. voiding harm is certainly an essay. It has prominence on Wikipedia, with 44 editors weighing in, and I could show you where other "essays", that are supported by broad community support, has been used as a rationale to block or ban an editor by admins. I am very sure this is not needed because likely you, certainly myself, and other editors here, use other such community supported essays when it is warranted. Essays are not policy or guidelines but when they become used by the community at large they become part of Wikipedia standards. This "essay" has a lot to offer and concerning Pseudo-biographies (), to borrow words from Mel B and Lemongirl942 is ''"spot on"''. That essay also mentions Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (that has involved 141 editors) Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm#An inclusion test|in the same sentence (#3) and that is certainly something all editors should look at especially concerning BLP's. Using , or even GNG, as well as Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|IAR, by themselves or as a group, could be argued as reasoning to have an article on every local weatherman (or woman) that is on TV, with local daily newspaper coverage as references, but all these policies, guidelines, and even essays, are used in conjunction to establish a criteria. Where do we stop? Local coverage used as a reference for content is important but not as sole reasoning for an article. Some editors would advocate for well referenced local city, state, or regional pageants. I have run into this concerning scientists that are published "within their circle" but have only primary sources or scientific journal essays, somewhat like Atul Kumar, that was previously deleted and appeared again, and there are editors that think there should be a limit. Trying to count trivial pageants, coverage that is actually some collateral damage (Trump) that actually did not affect the subject and should be on the appropriate pageant article, or in one case, that contains the rationale for keep "Please don't delete this article because she is going to compete in a national pageant and might win", does create a running count to by-pass . If a contestant won a Miss Best diaper" pageant, that is not notable, we should not count that as a rationale if she wins a state contest, for reasoning to have an article on Wikipedia because the subject is excluded from bio1E
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:PSEUDO||WP:OSE||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: nbsp; In this case, the topic is more |prominent in the article on Miss USA 2015 than in the Miss Kansas USA article.&nbsp; The second Kansas City Star article (a newspaper based in Missouri) stated, {{cquote|She was the first Miss USA contestant to publicly sound off on the controversy created by pageant co-owner Trump’s comments last month referring to Mexicans as rapists and criminals. She appeared on CNN after she spoke to The Kansas City Star. Latina magazine this week spoke to all the Hispanic contestants at the pageant, including Railsback, who said: “Well, I didn’t agree with his comments. I was offended by what he said; my family, they were also offended. I definitely understand why people are reacting the way they are. What he said was very hurtful. I mean, it’s caused a lot of problems, not only for the pageant, but for people across the nation
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE)

Comment: per meeting . There is some coverage of the subject's participation in Miss USA 2015, but not a great deal. http://www.latintimes.com/miss-usa-2015-contestant-photos-meet-51-beauty-queens-hoping-win-crown-328487 This provides one ¶, some coverage http://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/ent-columns-blogs/stargazing/article25773886.html here inre Donald Trump's statements and the Miss USA 2015 pageant. Additional sources covering the subject include: http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2015/jan/06/shawnees-alexis-railsback-named-miss-kansas-compet/, http://www.kansascity.com/living/article27036949.html
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: The analysis about  is spot on and in any case it doesn't pass . GNG is not a free pass to an article - it is a guideline which needs to be seen in context of  as well as . We need to exclude sources with tangential coverage as notability cannot be inherited. http://www.newsweek.com/miss-usa-pageant-draws-less-38000-online-viewers-352963 This source for example cannot be used for GNG purposes because the article is about the event with a tangential mention of the subject. This is not significant coverage. (in contrast, an article about the subject with a tangential mention of the event would be useful). I'm also cautious about using local sources for GNG purposes because they tend to give disproportionate coverage to local events. Using local sources would make a whole lot of people "notable" which precisely goes against DIR. The way I see it, the subject has received some coverage for being crowned Miss Kansas USA but the rest of coverage is tangential. BIO1E, so I am OK with a delete or redirect to Miss Kansas USA
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:GNG||WP:NOT||WP:NOPAGE||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: nbsp; We've now seen four examples of .&nbsp; Deletion arguments keep trying to reduce the focus of attention away from the entire corpus of evidence that this topic has received the attention of the world at large over a period of time (WP:N nutshell).&nbsp; CNN is not a WP:RS(?)&nbsp; Only the pageant in Kansas can be allowed to contribute to GNG (since when does Wikipedia only like people who win?).&nbsp; And all of those sources in Kansas (width 410 miles) can be discounted as local as per WP:CORPORATION (cited by two to three delete !votes).&nbsp; Coverage in Orlando and N Y City is not really evidence, because, you know, pictures are for people to look at, and such pictures don't represent attention given to the topic by the WP:RS(?)&nbsp; Yet this topic is truly a special case, as a state pageant winner who has transitioned to become a focus of national political attention, generated by the fallout from the controversy following the announcement of Donald Trump to become president of the US.&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: article itself does need work, but there is no policy violation.  Reliable sources can be found simply by clicking on the "news" link above and we find quickly that although there is no "blanket guideline" for pageant contestants when it comes to notability, we find that no such guideline or rule is needed when the |general notability guideline is met.  I see that as the case here, for example this article in http://www.newsweek.com/miss-usa-pageant-draws-less-38000-online-viewers-352963 Newsweek where she is featured prominently -- and was carried also by http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/30/media/trump-nbc-miss-usa/ CNN Money.  These as well as the other articles show that the subject passes notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I would suggest redirect but I don't want my !vote not counted because that option is not on the table. Reasoning: The long list of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources|primary references, that is ''"...original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved."'', that also states, ''"'''Do not''' base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."''. The lack of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources|multiple secondary references, not satisfying , and arguably  (http://www.sunburstbeauty.com/our-pageants/ are pageant entrants models?). One source states http://thoughtcatalog.com/ashley-pariseau/2014/07/8-truths-about-beauty-pageants-you-might-not-know/ ''"This is because the pageant organization wants to promote a woman that has modeling potential on top of everything else they look for in a winner."''. Contestants do model clothes, that can include swimwear, walk a runway several times, and entering a "beauty contest" leads to exposure for professional modeling. Placing or winning certainly leads to modeling offers. Is being a beauty contestant modeling? We can call it modeling, non-professional modeling, amateur modeling, or |entertainment (entertainers) if it makes some people feel better. The fact that a subject is notable exclusively for one event, and being involved as collateral damage caused by trump does not count as that can be covered on the Donald Trump article, nor does other trivial pageants, is a line we need to draw until there is something like NPAGEANT with community consensus for application. The article is a long list of primary references (some that are advertising) that are not supported by secondary sources. Someone once was quoted as saying "If you don't like a rule... just follow it... reach on the top... and change the rule.", otherwise we have policies and guidelines. I have listed several that this article is not in compliance with. Out of 20 references, at least two are dead, 3 or 4 or secondary coverage about one event, and the rest are primary coverages about one event. One http://www.missuniverse.com/missteenusa/photos/index/gallery_id:4/year:all/gallery_category_id:11/page:9 reference advertises her Sherri Hill fashion, Chinese Laundry shoes, and "Sun Kitten" (A sponsor) swimwear
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:NMODEL||WP:ENTERTAINER)