Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific World (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. If this is a scam, or a scandal-ridden sex affair, the content of the article can reflect that. With thanks to NorthAmerica: reliable sources to prove notability (and scandal) exist. Such sources were not produced at the first AfD, hence the different result. Nominator and others are urged to improve this article based on said sources. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Miss Asia Pacific World
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article was recently deleted in an AfD´. See nothing that has changed too make it a notable pageant. Non-notable per GNG. Scam pageant. It's Delete for me. BabbaQ (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 18.  Snotbot   t • c »  12:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom this appears to be dubious. Reading this there is also mention of lawsuits regarding the name. Gwen Chan 13:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also this. Of course, it may be that the contest is notable as a scam pageant. But I'm unsure of the ethics regarding "balance" in a case such as this. Gwen Chan 14:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Contrary to as mistakenly stated in the nomination, Miss Asia Pacific World is not a "scam pageant". See:, , , , ,  and  for starters. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understood the nominator to mean that the pageant "scams" the competitors - telling them it will pick up their travel tab, then refusing, not providing accomodation as promised, "dodgy" voting, refusal to hand over prizes etc. Not "scam" as in "it does not exist." Gwen Chan 08:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep because the topic passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 02:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I commented above, this may be notable purely for the scandal/scamming of contestants. But surely that isn't a particularly good basis to keep an article? Gwen Chan 08:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah Nortamerica1000, all that coverage is proof of the fact that the pageant is a scam troughout and was the reason to why the article was deleted in the first place.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Then add in more information to the article regarding this aspect of the topic. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, and not subjective opinions about the topics themselves. Actually, the pageant appears to be scheduled to occur in 2012. When it occurs again, will it be described as a "scam"? Maybe, maybe not. If it's a "scam", what type of scam is it? Regardless, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Topics that receive negative press coverage are not therefore non-notable vis-a-vis the negative press coverage. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are in place to prevent the subjective deletion of topics in this manner, based upon subjective judgments, rather than the availability of sources. See also WP:NOTCENSORED. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Still all the sources in the entire world can not change the fact that it was a non-pageant held in 2011. The girls were offered to have sex with officials if they wanted to place high. Venezuela won the talent competition without even entering. Girls left after feeling scared for their lives. This "pageant" does not forfill the WP:GNG requirements at all. All sources of dignity are only reporting on what a scam this "event" was.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And now I see that the original winner was dethroned then the first runner up was dethroned sop now the second runner up holds the so called title. Ridiculous.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Then add in more information to the article regarding this aspect of the topic. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, and not subjective opinions about the topics themselves. Actually, the pageant appears to be scheduled to occur in 2012. When it occurs again, will it be described as a "scam"? Maybe, maybe not. If it's a "scam", what type of scam is it? Regardless, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Topics that receive negative press coverage are not therefore non-notable vis-a-vis the negative press coverage. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are in place to prevent the subjective deletion of topics in this manner, based upon subjective judgments, rather than the availability of sources. See also WP:NOTCENSORED. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Still all the sources in the entire world can not change the fact that it was a non-pageant held in 2011. The girls were offered to have sex with officials if they wanted to place high. Venezuela won the talent competition without even entering. Girls left after feeling scared for their lives. This "pageant" does not forfill the WP:GNG requirements at all. All sources of dignity are only reporting on what a scam this "event" was.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And now I see that the original winner was dethroned then the first runner up was dethroned sop now the second runner up holds the so called title. Ridiculous.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - I am still dubious about this pageant's notability. The subject has recieved mentions on some recent articles and this encourages a keep from me, but overall, it's still a case of WP:PERSISTENCE from me. All of Northamerica's sources were to articles dating back to October 2011, and I see nothing to show that this topic has a firm stand of notability as a scam beauty pageant. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject has received more than enough coverage from multiple reliable sources.  In terms of deciding notability, the nature of said sources is irrelevant.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  19:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont buy that argument. All "multiple reliable sources" only provide information about the scams of this pageant. Wikipedia should have articles on beauty pageants but only the ones with good reputation and reliable organizations. Such as Miss Supranational that was just kept via an AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  01:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. It would be nice if this article were consistent with itself. If this pageant was first held in 2011 (which I suspect is the truth), it can't be the case that "It was formerly known as ‘Asia’ or ‘Pacific’ Competition since the 1960s" (which I suspect is not the truth). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: This article was deleted recently in another AfD and now it has been recreated but it is still inconsistent and does not provide any true leads to provide me comfort that the next pageant will actually be a pageant and not a true scam were judges offers girls placements for sex or similar. Its a non-pageant which no pageant site or similar ever reports on. Does not pass WP:GNG basically.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Miss Asia Pacific World is different from Miss Asia Pacific International.--Arielle Leira (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree non-notable pageant. Were winners are dethroned for 1 runner up and then the 1 runner up is dethroned. Ridiculous. Does not pass WP:GNG at all. Some keep arguments here are based on that the pageant could become better in 2012 but it seems that it only getting worse as the first runner up was dethroned earlier this year. That indicates that 2012 will only get worse.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above !vote seems to be a subjective rationale about the notability of the pageant itself in comparison to other pageants, rather than upon Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. WP:GNG is based upon the availability of reliable sources that are comprised of significant coverage about topics. This topic has received significant coverage in several reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are still missing the point. All those reliable sources points out that the pageant is a fraud troughout.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Despite how the pageant was characterized in sources, the actual topic received coverage. See also: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the article has significant, continued and diverse coverage about the scam that took place at this beauty pageant. It should be considered notable per the notability guidelines. You cannot reject notability by saying that the reliable sources say its a fraud. To Northamerica1000: I am a little confused on what your opinion is, are you saying that the article is kept as a regular beauty pageant, or a scam beauty pageant? --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep - Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored. If the beauty pageant is a fraud with significant coverage, then its a keep from me. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I find that reasoning faulty at best.. and still call for a deletion of this article as no pageant exist. a scam pageant exist yes, but until the organizers can prove that the pageant can hold international standards it can not be called a pageant and by that does not need a article on Wikipedia. And provided the fact that the 1 runner-up was dethroned recently in favour of the 2 runner-up almost unheard of in real pageants it doesnt look good for the 2012 edition of this "thing". still does not pass WP:GNG in any way.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2012 (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.