Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlin Upton (2nd nomination)

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The result was keep, should have been speedily kept when withdrawn as the one delete argument doesn't appear significant. Coredesat 04:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caitlin Upton

Caitlin Upton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is the epitome of flash-in-the-pan 'notability'; the girl in question's only claim to fame is giving a dumb answer to a question in a beauty pageant, which was briefly a popular video on YouTube. I'm not sure if she was ever notable in the first place, but even if she was, her 15 minutes ended a long time ago. Being Teen South Carolina USA is not by itself grounds for notability, and the 'story' here has no long-term significance whatsoever. Nomination withdrawn. Terraxos (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable for a dumb answer. I don't think that Upton appreciates the ridicule of the "famous response" section either. Malinaccier (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sure, there are some decent sources, but her 15 minutes of fame are up (see WP:BLP1E). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to pass WP:RS although the criticism should be removed. I didn't catch the Trump agency association on first glance of the article; it would seem that she is indeed notable for more than just one thing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BLP1E applies to private and "low profile" individuals. A model for national magazines (and now modeling for Donald Trump's agency) and someone who wins Miss Teen South Carolina and willingly participates in a nationally televised pageant is in no manner "private" or "low profile".--Oakshade (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Besides being the subject of mulitiple independent secondary sources that are primarily about this person, the core criterion of both WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY, she has over 19 million youtube views (the 28th most viewed video of all time) and is a multiple national magazine model. That she's now modeling for Donald Trump's agency made national headlines. The modeling is outside the "dumb answer" and far beyond "15 minutes." --Oakshade (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Oakshade and TenPoundHammer, above. If there are BLP problems they can be fixed and do not overwhelm the article. The fact that she did give a famously dumb answer to a question in a beauty pageant was broadcast around the world and continues to be, and is well covered in all major media, so noting that fact here is not unfair. Wikidemo (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see the problem. She meets WP:N and BIO. If there is a BLP issue, edit the article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the previous AfD covered all these issues. The amount of coverage of this person indicate she's notable and doesn't fall under WP:BLP1E, and that was the consensus before and there's no new reason in this nomination. Mangojuice^talk 05:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. More coverage here than it needs. The existing reference in the Miss Teen USA 2007 article is more than adequate, and is all this subject needs or deserves.--Plane nutz (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Personal testimony: I just came upon a reference to Caitlin Upton's "incomprehensible answer" at the pagent—I didn't know what this was, so the first place I came to find out was here, and of course WP had the answer. This demonstrates: 1. the usefulness of this article, and 2. that her noteriety is not just "a flash in the pan" since she still in the news today. Additionally, the nominator has not specified what WP:N criteria are not met. Yilloslime (t) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Since the vast consensus here is that she meets notability requirements, I'll withdraw my nomination. (I admit my reasons for supporting deletion here were probably based more on WP:IDONTLIKEIT than on any real policy dispute.) Terraxos (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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.