Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific World 2011 (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   merge to Miss Asia Pacific World. The individual year pages should bemerged to Miss Asia Pacific World which will be kept. J04n(talk page) 11:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Miss Asia Pacific World 2011

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article already deleted before, re-created by a now blocked user from the country of the pageant. possible pageant official. A fake pageant where the original winner resigned after 24 hour and the first runner up was also dethroned. Many contestants quited the pageant as the officials faked results etc which is not mentioned in the article. The article creator is a blocked account which in its original version didnt even mention the original winner and had even replaced her name with a fake name of a contestant that never participated. Possibly only keep main article Miss Asia Pacific World. This article is about a non-notable pageant.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also in the nomination of this fake pageant.


 * Miss Asia Pacific World
 * Miss Asia Pacific World 2012
 * Miss Asia Pacific World 2013


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 20.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  13:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hope the closing admin takes that into consideration that a pro-keep editor has been notified. Its up to the closing user to evaluate if that is something good or bad.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all it is indeed a not notable pageant.94.234.170.71 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I have tagged the bundled articles for deletion. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: As was an important participant in the outcome of the previous AfD, I have notified them of this one. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I tried to make it as neutral as possible. I have not made a decision in this reincarnation of the AfD. Knowing that Northamerica would be interested in commenting based on their position in the last AfD, I notified him using . Frankly, I am actually leaning towards a delete. I am interested in Northamerica's opinion. They have not yet responded and they have every right to do nothing. I reviewed the guideline against WP:CANVASSING before I notified Northamerica1000, and found that the notification "on the talk page of concerned editors" is appropriate. The guideline explicitly states examples of that bullet point: "Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed.". I have a strong and good faith belief that my notification to was not canvassing. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all - All of the articles are very biased, as they were largely edited by an editor with a COI and username blocked as such. While I am hesitant in deleting Miss Asia Pacific World by means of my stand on the previous AfD, I think that the controversy surrounding this subject pretty much died down. The article states that BBC's original coverage of the scandel was "mishandled", if that means anything at all. The sources point to a controversy, and coverage seems significant, so my !vote is weak. I propose deletion because I feel that a completely neutral article would be highly improbable with all the conflicts of interest and lack of diverse and recent coverage. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Miss Asia Pacific World and merge sourced information from the others into it. Miss Asia Pacific World in general has received enough coverage to qualify for a standalone article. Source examples about the pageant include:, , , , . Here's two about alleged kickbacks/bribes, with some mentions: , . Ongoing coverage regarding it's participants also occurs. Examples include: , , , . Significant coverage about each annual event may not be existent at an appropriate degree to qualify standalone articles for each year's event. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm suspicious of the fact that this article uses 37 citations for a single sentence, yet fails to mention why one of the three women who held this title was dethroned after serving for eight months (something which would seem to be significant for understanding the situation). In addition, one of the sources cited says that "many pageant sites do not care about this rigged pageant anymore". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, delete the individual years' entries Miss Asia Pacific World 2011, Miss Asia Pacific World 2012, and Miss Asia Pacific World 2013 but no opinion as to the general article Miss Asia Pacific World. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Miss Asia Pacific World, notability (albeit negative) does exist, per @Northamerica1000. Delete all the others. I would also argue, given the existing evidence at this point, that the bios of the... winners should be deleted or at the very least redirected to the main article. I've never seen so many redundant references, by the way. It must be some kind of record. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Disruptive pointy nomination. Nomination is based on their own personal judgment about the credibility of the pageant, not on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nominator ignores multiple articles which go beyond a passing mention and which could very well satisfy WP:N when the nominator considers two mere mentions of a name to be enough to show notability . Nominator goes overboard !voting keep to the extent of saying keep per relister. Gives a reason of keep because sources show music?? Claims passing GNG when no reliable sources are provided. In the face of nominators excessive inclusionism this reeks of bad faith. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that it is more bad faith and disruptive to !vote speedy keep in a AfD discussion and then dont give any good reason for it except some sort of vendetta against the AfD nominator. And why not bring it up at My talk page instead of an AfD discussion. Very strange. I would ask the closing user to ignore the obviously nonsense and talk page appropriate comment from the user above that adds nothing to the discussion. BabbaQ (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have brought this situation up at the users talk page so the user gets a fair and good faith opportunity to explain what the reasons for this outburst was. As the user should have done in the first place. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all The pageant is not notable and the article is just promotional from the owner and staff of the pageant. Miss Asia Pacific World is copycat of a notable pageant Miss Asia Pacific International.--Arielle Leira (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:51, 7 February 2013 (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.