Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International (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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 04:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Miss Grand International
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising. Most sources on Google are related or social media The Banner talk 11:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact a moot discussion, as I only discovered afterwards that this article is a copy and paste recreation (including maintenance templates) that was deleted after a normal AfD and was refused undeletion. So I have tagged it for speedy deletion. The Banner talk 11:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the speedy deletion request was valid, but user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz preferred to start edit warring to protect the article. But the first version makes loud and clear that is a cut and paste recreation. Nota bene after a refused undeletion request. I think he is confused by Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miss Grand International 2014, a declined submission that would have been a content fork of the present artikel under discussion. The Banner talk 23:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop making things up. You posted a speedy-repost request on the article. I declined it, because the original AFD turned on the fact that the pageant hadn't taken place. The current version of the article includes a credible claim that the pageant had been staged in 2013, as well as that it would be staged again this year. That's enough to demonstrate that the speedy-repost request was inappropriate. You're not supposed to restore a declined db-repost unless you dispute that the current and deleted articles aren't substantially identical. Since you don't dispute that, you shouldn't have reinstated the speedy -- and that was the only part of the exchange that approached edit warring. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per nomination. Did not meet the general notability guideline--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep; It seems to be covered in foreign press.,, , , , , . That would seem to be multiple third-party sources covering the topic. Voice of Vietnam[2] says it is broadcast in over 100 countries. -- dsprc   [talk]  13:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Relisting per new sources presented in the discussion.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />


 * FYI: Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />


 * Delete per nom - most of these pageants, other than the so called "Big 4" do not have any significant coverage besides the usual Facebook fan pages and pageant websites which do not provide reliable information. GrayFullbuster (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How many of those "most" are broadcast on live television in over half of the planet's countries? That is notable in and of itself. -- dsprc   [talk]  00:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The info stated by Voice of Vietnam[2] that says "the Miss Grand International 2013 pageant, is live broadcast in more than 100 countries" is part of the promotional material made up by the pageant owner as reflected in the "About Us" section of the official website of the Miss Grand International . In this case, Voice Vietnam is a questionable source for the claim of  "live broadcast to 100 countries" since the information was directly lifted from the official website of Miss Grand International which  is an apparent and widely considered promotional in nature. Note that the article was written in the future by Voice Vietnam where the broadcast had not taken place at the time of the publication. Aside from the Lets Viet, the article failed to mention any other broadcasters.  As an editor stated before  in another article, "It would be easier to confirm the pageant's real broadcast situation if the pageant would put their international broadcast schedule on their web site, but they didn't."--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The About page doesn't says anything about 100 countries. It says "100s Of Millions Of Media Impressions" and "Over 1.5 Billion People Have Tuned In". VoV's article was written in the past or present tense, either reflecting on the 2012 performance or the then current one and was published online in English in the midst of the event (pub date is 11th, event runs 8th-22nd); so that point is moot. I think the problems we've here with sourcing are that it is primarily an event of the developing world, for which our search engines do not index those internets well (the difficulties of sourcing stuff for India, Africa etc is a well known problem around here, especially non-English content) and that those of us in "the West" have different expectations of the media landscape because of our corporate cultures. -- dsprc   [talk]  11:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as per numerous reliable sources easily meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Putting this up front, I have had serious issues with this nominator failing to acknowledge coverage of events in order to achieve deletion. So I have larded this article up with ten international WP:RS sources, just to show you the coverage he, I submit deliberately, ignored in order to make this nomination.  I call that bad faith.  Because he is doing this en masse, while also actively trying to delete this entire class of article, I accuse him of trying to do this to make a WP:POINT.  It did not take too much work, to get beyond the first couple of pages of unreliable sources on this subject, to get to ones that are more reliable.  That said, this article needs more work writing relevant prose by someone who knows more about this style of contest.  That is not an acceptable cause for deletion. Trackinfo (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You have really no other arguments than personal attacks, don't you? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see it as a personal attack but rather having an issue with your behavior. There is evidence about rapid-fire AfDing articles (see chart).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You are not giving arguments to prove the notability of the pageants and/or contestants. You are just attacking me and my nominations and disrupting AfDs with your list.. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What reasons do you have to delete the article other than you don't like it?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt notability and when I did my research I only found very limited Google hits, often just a few hundred and including Wikipedia, social media and related websites. There is no way that it is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you prefer to claim, but sincere doubt of notability. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You call what you did research?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you call "Assume Good Faith"? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Banner, you wrote I only found very limited Google hits -- is that the extent of your "research" -- put a term in the browser bar, and counted google hits? Did you do any of the required steps before nominating an article beforehand? What, specifically, are your reasons for nominating this article for deletion? Hmmmmm?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You can find that in the original nomination on the top of this page. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 07:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * But again you are deflecting the discussion from its central point: notability. Why don't give some evidence of the notability? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 07:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So, your reasons for proposing this nomination are -- "advertising. Most sources on Google are related or social media" -- that's it? So you're basing your nomination on problems with the current article? That's a mistake. Articles can be improved. Before nominating an article for AfD, you are expected to search for additional sources (see step D). You skipped that step. If you had taken two minutes to do that, numerous sources would have popped out. So I am not criticizing you as a person but criticizing your methods, specifically, for not following Wikipedia's guidelines about nominating articles. Since you do not seem to be listening to others who have told you this repeatedly, administrators should consider banning you from nominating more articles for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And again you start with desperate measures and a big WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why don't you just prove the notability? I have not skipped steps, you just refuse to accept my opinion and convince me that the pageant is notable with reliable sources. Harassing en disruptive editing is not making your case stronger, no matter how hard you shout and roar. Give evidence of notability. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and edit the article so it is less an "advertizement". There are enough sources (linked above) to establish that the pageant is notable.  Wikipedia should have an article on it.  If there are issues with the article as it currently reads, we can use the sources that exist to rewrite it.  The solution to this one is to rewrite the article, not to delete it. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wandered over to the Thai language version of the article to retrieve the title text in its native wiki/language, and then plugged that into Google, which spits out a hundred thousand results, such as MSN Thailand covering the swimwear competition etc. Unable to read Thai, nor being privy to the media ecosystem of Thailand, I've no way to definitively vouch for the reliability of many sources, but they do seem to be numerous. There just isn't that much English language coverage, but we've multi-lingual editors that we can reach out to for assistance in this regard (Category:User th or others). --  dsprc   [talk]  21:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried the same but got only 5510 results. But I used the option "the exact word or phrase" instead of "all these words" on the search page. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The title on the Thai Wiki seems to have a typo in it or something. If you use that then Google will suggest the correct spelling, and if Google's suggestion is clicked, it provides the proper results (which I've linked above). One could also simply use the bolded name from the intro of the first paragraph which is the same (that is what I did because I've more faith in our native speakers than some machine; but the machine does verify). Searching with "quotes" is the same as verbatim, you may experiment to verify (the whole process took me like 2 minutes).


 * With that said, I am in agreement with about a rewrite, as the sources turned up in the Thai language search alone seem to indicate broad coverage and notability (who knows for other languages). It may also indicate that there is some validity to 's claim that  may not have been entirely thorough investigating prior to AfD. --  dsprc   [talk]  21:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Sir, there is no validity in Tomwsulcers strange ideas. A quick translation of the Thai page ( showed 6 different sources: two facebook pages, two forums and two related websites. Not a single reliable, independent source. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:43, 23 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.