Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Four international beauty pageants (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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Big Four international beauty pageants
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Leaving aside for a moment the questionable practice of promoting the objectification of women, this article is built on WP:SYN. Some sources list four pageants as the top four, and from that we synthesis the term "big four" and then collate a bunch of information from the individual pageants. This is one step too far in the creep of pageantcruft. Guy (help!) 11:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP As it says at the start of the article The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Xinhua News Agency, and global news agencies such as Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse collectively refer to the four major pageants as "Big Four" . There is no SYN here.  The last AFD found many reliable sources talking about the "big four".  And we are not "promoting the objectification of women" by having articles about beauty pageants, since mostly females watch those things anyway, same with the fashion magazines and shows, and whatnot.  Many women are obsessed with physical appearances, unable to leave the house without makeup on, etc. it how their brains work, it not caused by this Wikipedia article.   D r e a m Focus  15:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "it how their brains work"??? This sexist and unsupportable commentary is irrelevant to the discussion. pburka (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I’m sure with 390 citations you can find reference to the term big four to describe these (still prestigious in this day and age, for some reason) pageants. A simple google search does it. Trillfendi (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: Well with an opening like "Leaving aside for a moment the questionable practice of promoting the objectification of women", this sounds to me like an I don't like it nomination. The article is clearly reliably sourced, very speedy keep. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , not really, no. We delketed WP:HOTTIE for a reason. Guy (help!) 00:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not WP:HOTTIE. Pageants are not objectifying, they are empowering. Let's stop telling women what they are and aren't allowed to choose to do because they don't fit our definition of what's acceptable of a woman. { [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 01:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - good sourcing. Per WP:GNG. These pageants does not objectify women more than a footballer is objectified when playing football. If anything these pageants empowers the women competing.BabbaQ (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly KeepIt is not at SYNTH. The article did not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. "A SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources." In the article in question, the statements are verifiable from the sources with in line citations and even stated in quotations. Regarding the claim of the nominator that "we synthesis the term big four," the article cites plethora of reliable sources where the term "big four" can be found and various sources talking entirely about big four or simply go to google news search to find more. On the statement of the nominator "then collate a bunch of information from the individual pageants," I would like to point out the following from WP:NOTSYNTH. SYNTH is not ubiquitous: If you consider all instances of reading a table to be SYNTH because reading a table requires "synthesizing" the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong. Objective, straightforward, and basic descriptions of an illustration are not SYNTH. SYNTH is not a rigid rule: never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article." Furthermore, SYNTH is not unnecessary: Wikipedia editors are allowed to use all of this synthesis, since they did not create it but are instead reporting what reliable sources have said. SYNTH refers both to a policy forbidding original research by Wikipedia editors by synthesis, and to such synthesis itself.--Richie Campbell (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - As pointed out above, the references use the term "Big Four", so no WP:SYN. The rest of the nomination seems to be WP:IDL --John B123 (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep "Leaving aside for a moment the questionable practice of promoting the objectification of women" makes clear this is a IDONTLIKEIT nom, the sources are clearly there and no WP:BEFORE search seems to have been made. GuzzyG (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.