Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Cipriani


 * 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) – Davey 2010 Talk 04:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Francesca Cipriani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Effectively unsourced BLP. No references and the one external link is to a related source. The Banner talk 19:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Very interesting. This stub was created in the exact same format as the mass-produced pageant bios by now-blocked editors. I have a bad feeling about this. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – There seems to be two schools of thought about this. One school is that winners of national pageants who go on to compete at Miss Universe or Miss World are notable. E.g. see Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_17, which was a keep. Also it seems that all of her recent predecessors as Miss Ecuador have articles. The other school is that they have to meet GNG. have you considered proposing an RfC on this, going through the past few years of AfD, so that we could add it to WP:Outcomes? It seems like we should have some kind of guideline on this, instead of outcomes depending on who shows up to !vote. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No! Reason for that is WP:BLP and WP:RS. And in contrast to your link, you have also Articles for deletion/Tonie Chisholm, ending in a delete. So every contestant to a pageant (and in fact every pageant) should be just on their own merits. The Banner talk 01:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article has been significantly improved and better sourced since this nomination was made. I have further cleaned up the grammar, spelling, and formatting as well as adding additional sources from national newspapers: and . - Dravecky (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Although better, it is still not okay. For example, the link to La Hora is a dead link. And Global Beauties and Anglopedia are not the reliable, independent sources that are needed conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh? The La Hora link I posted above is working just fine. (Just checked it 20 seconds ago.) I acknowledge the weakness of the Global Beauties and Anglopedia but left them in as they're English language coverage of a story out of Ecuador. In any case, the multiple reliable sources in Spanish are good old fashioned mainstream newspapers and are more than sufficient for WP:GNG. - Dravecky (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, must have been a glitch on La Hora. The Banner talk 14:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the extra references and sources added per Dravecky. I agree meets WP:GNG.    WordSeventeen (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2015 (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.