Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Bikini New Zealand


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Miss Bikini New Zealand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page created as promotion by user who appears to have very close (undisclosed) professional connections to Miss Supranational. Essentially its only claim to notability is that it decides who gets sent to this non-notable, deleted-and-salted pageant. It is also completely unreferenced - and I saw NOTHING in the 37 Google hits I got for a search for the pageant that was actually solid coverage of the pageant itself. A lot of the media stories which mention this pageant focus on the transgender model Amy Brosnahan and on Miss Bikini NZ's director, Katrina Turner's apparent tendency to say controversial things - I see few reliable sources that really focus on the pageant itself. Mabalu (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nom. Appears to be strong COI/self-promotion from user undergoing sock investigation for this exact editing behaviour. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious delete for lack of notability and possible WP:COI. Maybe should have been speedy deleted db-promo --Jersey92 (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy would have been a good idea, although I think AFDs such as this are necessary to establish that the creator's work is dubious in such a way that it's clear to other Wikipedians. Mabalu (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - obviously not notable, as popular as it might be with the locals. I'm glad it came here - speedy deletion probably not a great idea in this case. Good call.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable - see also WP:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Supranational_(2nd_nomination) NealeFamily (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks substantial coverage by reliable sources. RS coverage is limited to controversial comments made by the event's director. Not even close to satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.-- danntm T C 20:52, 21 September 2014 (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.