Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Four pageants


 * 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 delete. The statistics probably could meet WP:V in another appropriate article, so if such an article is found, undeletion and redirection might well be useful. But the actual topic of the article does not appear meet WP:V after a great deal of effort so deletion is required. (As to the relevance of other arguments: the WP:NEO argument is correct and significant for deletion; the "too many contributions" argument actually counts in favor of deletion if there has been a lot of effort without finding good sources; the "it's useful" argument is weak for keeping but strong for redirecting and merging after a suitable topic is identified; and lack of independent reliable sources about the topic (notability) is also a significant arguement for deletion.) GRBerry 03:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Big Four pageants

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is relatively useful and has involved a lot of work, but I still can't get across the No OR & Verifiability principles in relation to this article so finally decided to bring it to afd. I can't say I'm strongly in favour of deletion, but it just doesn't seem to meet general inclusion criteria. Keep in mind that the term itself was created by a fan site. There are a fair few google hits but most of them are mirrors and rubbish. The Google News Archive has nothing on the topic. I'm interested in seeing what others think, but at the moment I'm favouring deletion. PageantUpdater talk • contribs  09:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There's been way too many contributions to delete it now. It is also very informative. -- Lancini87 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The major flaw of the article might be the lack of citation or notes (i.e. verifiability). But this could be worked out since majority of the article is made up of statistics. The main challenge here is the fact that the article, by nature, is a collection of different information and data, hence, when you google it, you might just find a page that bears just one element of Big Four pageants, if not just a mirror site. Being a term coined by a pageant site is not enough reason to delete this article. One might be surprised as to how some mundane words which we have gradually considered as formal ones came from slang terms and other word corruptions.Joey80 01:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia isn't for things made up one day in a pageant marketing team meeting. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that indicate that these four pageants are notable as a whole. Also runs afoul of WP:NEO. Otto4711 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lancini and Joey. I agree that it needs to be sourced. Mandsford 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lancini's arguments are that people put effort into it and that it's useful, neither of which are substantive arguments. Joey's argument notes that the article has serious verifiability issues. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that identify these pageants as being significant as a unit, which sourcing problems you acknowledge. What is the basis then for keeping this article? Otto4711 05:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as a neologism. Niether of the sites linked to as sources use the phrase "Big Four" or define what the "grand slam" is.  Unless the term is picked up and used by notable sources and becomes widely excepted, it is not material for wikipedia.  Pastordavid 20:51, 15 November 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.