Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Diva (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 no consensus. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Miss Diva
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Miss Diva Articles for deletion/Miss Diva (2nd nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination on behalf of User:Sky Groove, who I will ask to come and provide a rationale. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've asked the nominating editor for a rationale; if they don't post something here in, oh, a day or so, feel free to close this on a procedural basis. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The article should be deleted because the neutrality of the article has been disputed and it has now become impossible to restore it moreover the article cite so many issues. Since past 1 year I have beem trying my best to make it issue free and neutral article but all the efforts went vain. Other users have also tried to improve the article to make it more reliable and encyclopedic but all their efforts also went vain for proof you can see the edit history. So its better that someone with better wikipedia knowledge and experience creates a new one from scratch for betterment of the users who are interested in the field of beauty pageants. At last its my humble request to delete this article as soon as possible for the betterment of the people who cannot get complete info.about the topic regarding this field from this article as the main/crucial info. Is missing from the page some other users have also tried to complete it but no effect was seen. Since past 1 year the article is at the sane stage where it was 1 year ago. So I would want to have it deleted for the sake of people who would not get any proper info. From it and let a more knowledgable and experienced user recreate it. Regards. Sky Groove (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as I see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister   talk  15:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The article suffers from a lack of neutrality and independent sources from version one. Unless the author proves that he can write an article about the pageant that is neutral in style and tone and with proper reliable sources (conform WP:RS), I think that there is no need for a new article at all. The Banner talk 17:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So I would request the admin to delete the article as soon as possible so that a better editor could create it again in order to provide a reliable and better view of this part of beauty pageants. Regards Sky Groove (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Indeed this event is highly notable and one of primary beauty contest of India. Article itself have several independent sources. Winner of this competition goes for Miss Universe. There is huge coverage of this event in all major media of India. You can simply see this news result. If there is any problem with neutrality of this article then that can be corrected but we can't delete this obvious deserving article. Even one of nominator Sky Groove is only talking about "neutrality" of the article and insisting for delete only to recreate it in more neutral way, I think this is not reason to delete this article, it can be improved. -- Human 3015   TALK   16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As it has been mentioned twice that several efforts have been made by different users to restore its neutrality and improve it but no affect has seen so far and since one year the article is citing issues and no one could improve it. Sky Groove (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The article (as of this comment) has four maintenance tags on it, notability, relies to extensively on sources close to the subject, sources may not be reliable and neutrality. No one has started any discussion on the talk page to explain what exactly the problems are. The notability tag does not appear to be valid, it is a notable pageant.  The are two sourcing tags and I have a hard time seeing the justification for either one.  There are 11 sources in the article.  Sources 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 & 11 are from the India Times.  India Times appears to be a reliable source and independent of the pageant.  The only one that talks specifically about the pageant is 1 but that is pictures of the pageant winners without a lot of substance.  The other sources all mention the pageant, but their focus is on winners of the pageant and not the pageant themselves.  The rest of the sources also discuss pageant contestants not the pageant itself.  I am not sure about the reliability of some of the sources, specifically 2, 4, 6 & 10, but none of the sources appear to be connected to the pageant.  The final tag, neutrality is what the deletion rationale is based on.  I do not see a major problem with the neutrality of the article.  It states facts without passing judgement.   as a final thought neutrality is not a reason to delete the article but a reason to edit the article.  I see no valid reason to delete this article.  -- GB fan 11:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I have tried to put reliable sources to the page but all my edits were undone stating that the page doesn't cite reliable sources. As of my knowledge the sources by indiatimes are best and most reliable sources in India as it is world's largest selling daily (The Times of India) Owned by the The Times Group, a firm that has been in existence since 1838. Plus i am also unable to add the representatives to Miss Universe and other international beauty pageants under Miss Diva franchise. The sources that cite about the winners, they have won international beauty contests under Miss Diva title, for instance Srishti Rana, she was 2nd Runner Up at the Miss Diva - 2013 and won Miss Asia Pacific World 2013 in Seoul. If you guys can help me with it then please make it a wiki acceptable article with proper info. and meeting wiki standards. Regards Sky Groove (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 03:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note The nominator who is also the creator of the article has been using multiple sockpuppets in this garden. See Sockpuppet investigations/Sky Groove. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep When notability and coverage taken into consideration.Let us See Sockpuppet investigations/Sky GrooveWikienglish123 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * [Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 00:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)]


 * Comment. I was about to relist but since both the nominator and Wikienglish123 are blocked for sockpuppetry it might be best to close this as no consensus with no prejudice against starting a new AfD (ideally after attempts to address the article quality issues since that seems to be the concern rather than notability). Thoughts? Is it worth keeping this open? --Michig (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Close as no consensus due to sockpuppetry blocks with no prejudice against renomination following revisions as per Michig Mabalu (talk) 17:13, 12 November 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.