Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yéssica Mouton

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yéssica Mouton

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

Fails WP:GNG, no independent sources The Banner talk 12:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Represented her country at the indisputably notable Miss Universe. That is usually sufficient for a stub article. Mabalu (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Google Test points to 4620 hits, including doubles, social media and related websites. That boils down to a mere 154 unique hits, including social media and related websites. The Banner talk 10:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect properly viewed, Miss Universe is a reality show, and reality show contestants sre usually redirected to the show (or season) on which they appeared. In that light, this ought to be redirected. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"properly viewed" just means the way you view it. Many national pageant winners are deemed notable. Many reality show winners also have articles, but I'd suggest that is often a less notable accomplishment in terms of coverage received.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and redirect.~~Move to neutral ~~Clearly fails WP:GNG, and~~ I also find Calossuarez's arguments regarding "Miss Universe" basically being a reality show persuasive. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I remain convinced that such pageants should be treated like reality programs are, with contestants being redirected to the main article, it's clear that there are multiple sources for the contestants. I'm still unconvinced that simply because there are sources, that an article is merited, particularly given WP:ONEEVENT, but am switching my recommendation to "neutral", based on the fact that I was mistaken about the lack of sources. I do, of course, reserve the right to renominate this article (and others) at a future date, using more apt reasoning than the current nomination presents. My apologies for not looking deeper into the sourcing before making my comments above. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep: Just look for sources guys, I just easily found numerous articles about her in the Bolivian newspapers, adding a number of bare URLs to the article for the moment. She won her nation's beauty contest (Miss Bolivia) so this is really no shock; would you suggest Miss America is not notable? Come on now.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I missed this one out of almost a couple dozen similar nominations by the same NOM. 12 sources, unique attributions, this one is as said above, obvious. Trackinfo (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2014 (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.