Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Perú 1973


 * 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 redirect to Miss Peru. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  16:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Miss Perú 1973

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. Article is very unclear, so not sure there was a pageant at all. The Banner talk 09:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is part of a series of year-specific articles on Peru's participation in the Big Four international competitions (similar series of year-specific articles exist for most participating nations).  The fact that this year's representative was chosen in an unusual manner is itself something that can be discussed in the article.  Also, these year-specific articles, when fully fleshed-out, typically relate what happened to the representative(s) at the international level of competition, and this is information that is relevant regardless of how the representative was selected.  I also note that this is one of four Miss Peru articles that have been nominated under essentially the same weak rationale.  The other three are Miss Perú 1976, Miss Perú 1977, and Miss Peru 2012.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You forgot 1965, 1963 and 1964! Those three article were - after discussion - redirected to Miss Peru. The Banner talk 19:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but those were nominated for a lack of sourcing, with little evidence that either you or the two discussants actually looked for them. In just a few minutes, I was able to find a reliable source for one of them (from a Spanish language source) and am confident that sources for the other two exist, as well.  And, of course, your rationale in the instant case says nothing about sourcing, so there's no precedent here.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Articles for deletion/Miss Perú 1977 (2nd nomination). The Banner talk 18:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That one closed before I had a chance to alert the discussants as to your misleading suggestion of precedent. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * If not independently notable, redirect to Miss Peru as a valid search term. North America1000 21:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  04:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete and Redirect instead as there's still nothing at all convincing of its own article, redirect as a likely link, but there's nothing to actually suggest keeping this or saving to improve later. SwisterTwister   talk  04:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Miss Peru for now. No prejudice against recreation if valid offline sources are found that qualify notability. Topics from the early 1970s may not have much source coverage available using internet resources. It's also a valid search term for a redirect. North America1000 20:59, 18 June 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.