Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Multinational 2017


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Miss Multinational 2017

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Failed to meet WP:GNG. The edition of this new pageant was not notable enough. Richie Campbell (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails Syndicater (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY KEEP Bad faith nomination. Not much has changed since the previous attempt to kill this pageant, except that more sources have been added, as I predicted.  This pageant has gotten legitimate news coverage in primarily Asian based major news outlets.  Are the nominators that jingoistic?  Today, I had no problem finding additional sources to add to the various articles under attack as multiple individual AfD's.  You know a group effort like this should be unified WP:BUNDLE, these also have individual AfDs for each.  You know you should do a WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for AfD.  You obviously did not as I will substantiate later.  Both those steps were failed, so these should be Speedy Keep on procedural grounds alone.  My cynicism expects that won't even be considered.  WP:GNG is clearly met here.  2018 coverage: USA, CanadaIndia, more India (there's lots more), Brazil, Bangla Desh, Philippines, and more Philippines (and a lot more).  Philippines did a lot of coverage of the 2017 event, won by Miss Philippines.  They also gave a lot of coverage to the 2018 event, held in 2019, not won by a domestic entrant.  Do I have to lead you malicious people on a basic Google search, again?  Yes, I take these attacks seriously and use harsh language.  Legitimate attempts to find sources were not made.  Sources get removed.  These are deliberate to achieve the goal of eliminating content; to get brownie points for that effort.  All of the Miss Multinational articles should be a KEEP. Trackinfo (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Your edit putting four IC on a sentence about the winner's height wasn't too good. It was what I often call around here- Bullshit with a reference - since three of the four IC didn't corroborate the sentence namely the bit about the winner's height and hence I removed them. Make sure in the future that the reference actually says what it is there to corroborate....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Miss Multinational - one event is not notable on its own, only as part of the pageant series - unnecessary content fork from the main article - Epinoia (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This nomination was made after many international sources of the pageant were removed in this edit of vandalism. I have restored those sources including coverage by ABS-CBN, The Indian Express, The Philippine Star and Asia Times. It is entirely appropriate to cover annual pageants in a series. Trackinfo (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * DELETE - While it is possible to find some articles on this pageant they seem to be predominantly bloggings or press release stuff. There isn't any significant or sustained writing about the pageant itself. What appears to be a trade tracking site Missology doesn't consider it to be a significant pageant and they seem to keep a close eye on this niche industry. The site of the company that owns the pageant has default templates for some of its pages (About us) and stock photos in multiple places. While it may become a significant pageant some day, I don't see the coverage that would support that today, which is curious since promotion seems to be a key element of the industry. Pageants such as Miss Earth seem to have connections with significant organisations and have their contestants out promoting themselves, the org and its cause. I don't see anything similar here. I think all of this is reflected in the current state of the page as there isn't really anything to write about yet. My recommendation here applies to each of the related pages. ogenstein (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Aside - Made an error signing the above comment. ogenstein (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just wanted to note that the pageant web site hasn't even been updated to show the new winner, when the second contest was apparently held in January. The home page is still showing the initial contest's winner and a 'countdown' to the January event. Why would WP take them more seriously than they take themselves. As an added bonus, the 'coverage' on the PhilStar site gets the pageant year wrong and isn't about this pageant at all — they were covering a Miss World event and chatting with the Multinational winner who happened to be there. You can see that in the videos on the page. ogenstein (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2019 (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.