Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Multinational


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Miss Multinational

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unremarkable organised event; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Aayat1998 with few other contributions outside this topic. Promotionalism only on a nn pageant. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)K.e.coffman (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was able to find sources and add to the article. This ought to meet at least WP:GNG  Or are we under a mandate to delete all beauty pageants?  Sources talk about the establishment of the pageant, the 24 year old entrepreneur, the first pageant, its winner and runners up, and the future contestants for the second edition of the pageant in a little over a month.  What more do you expect to find for a pageant anticipating its second year?  Asia Times, CNN Philippines, The Indian Express, ABS-CBN not reliable sources? Trackinfo (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * delete - various promotional references and reports do not count per WP:NORG (yes, pageant is a business, not an event). Pageants are lucrative business they crop up every year, with pompous names. One needs serious independent sources with in-depth description. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Well, the article is enough stable to stand as a lone article/encyclopedic. Meets WP:GNG. Strong reliable sources present. See Miss Multinational. --الصبي الهندي (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * These "reliable sources" are not "strong". Please read WP:NORG: routine coverage, such as press releases and reports do not count towards notability of businesses. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

delete Not even one solid credible source for the article. If it was popular, it should have been covered by a major daily of the city at least. The winner, however they allege, is from Phillipines which kind of makes it international. Maybe it will become big in coming years and then can have a page. Move to drafts otherwise? Exploreandwrite (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * With 49 wikipedia edits, do you even know about sources, on a global basis? Asia Times is a major source from a small town of Hong Kong, Indian Express is from a tiny place called Mumbai, and of course the Philippines is excited with the winner, ABS-CBN, CNN Philippines, the Philippine Star are major media for the tiny country.  That was sarcasm.  That is 5 major news organizations covering the pageant and winner.  By the way, covering three different countries in a small, unimportant continent like Asia.  Even your phraseology, using "allege" is a Trumpian dismissive like the "failing New York Times." Trackinfo (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This "tiny place called Mumbai" is known for its "international business schools" pushing fake diplomas in every major Indian newspaper, the "paid news" phenomenon well-known in India and southEast Asia. There is a reason we need independent sources to verify business. Press releases and reports from an event do not count. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So you discredit essentially ALL sources emanating from India with your statement. This is an 87 year old daily newspaper with multiple publications in the major cities of India.  I can't vouch for anything out of India, they do tend toward fraud in their business dealings, but a major daily is as best we can hope for an unbiased source in that country.  That said, the reports also come from major sources in other, hopefully less corrupted places.  And if we start wholesale discrediting the press, Mr. Trump, we may as well trash all sources leading to wikipedia and the concept of wikipedia itself.Trackinfo (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I cast doubt on newspapers which publish advertorials, meaning sources cited in this newspapers require extra scrutiny. The articles cited in the discussed article do not qualify as significant independent non-routine coverage. And yes, we at Wikipedia have already started wholesale discrediting some press. Sadly, the amount of bullshit in press skyrocketed with the advent of the Internet. Why is that? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete - as per Staszek Lem.-Richie Campbell (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Weighing the press coverage through Google News (per WP:NEXIST) and in the article, I reached the conclusion that there is sufficient coverage and notability to keep this one central article on this pageant. In other words, while I consider the topic to be notable I further wish to make the observation that it is not important enough for national and annual articles. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per gidonb. --الصبي الهندي (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking through double !vote. I assume that user only wanted to share that he agrees with my opinion, which is appreciated. gidonb (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2018 (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.