Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Diva - 2015


 * 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. Nominator is advised to complete a search for sources before nominating. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience  t 01:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Miss Diva - 2015

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promo, no sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 17:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to:, , , , , , , , . See also section D of WP:BEFORE. North America1000 20:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have told you before that you have to declare your Conflict of Interest. You are now again filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft to protect an year-article while there is not even a link to a parent article about Miss Diva. The Banner talk 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no COI; improving an article is not COI. Here's the edits I have performed: add sources, add more footnotes template with Twinkle, move template, add an image. Please familiarize yourself with the actual COI guideline. None of these edits require sources (should I add more sources to qualify the sources I added, like referencing a reference?) and none constitute "fancruft", not even adding an image. It is sad that your characterization of me as "filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft" is so dishonest; I guess you'll just say anything regardless of the actual truth of the matter. How disappointing. North America1000 15:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep perhaps if this can be confirmed as notable and improvable. SwisterTwister   talk  23:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - As much as I would absolutely love to go with delete .... has unfortunately proven it meets GNG, – Davey 2010 Talk 01:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sourced well enough to comply. Can be improved and sources are available.  WP:Before.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 15:24, 2 February 2016 (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.