Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Perú 2012


 * 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 and redirect to Miss Peru. Nakon 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Miss Perú 2012

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a real pageant. The Banner talk 15:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional: Seems to fail WP:GNG. There was no pageant held, but she was handpicked: Due to the restructuring that carried out the Miss Peru Organization, Nicole Faverón was appointed to represent Peru in the Miss Universe 2012 pageant that was held in December in Las Vegas, NV, USA (where she placed in the Top 16).[1] The Banner talk 21:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:PERNOM. North America1000 20:49, 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.  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 comptetition, and this is something that can be discussed in the article regardless of how the representative was selected.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You forgot 1965, 1963 and 1964! Those three article were - after discussion - redirected to Miss Peru. The Banner talk 19:51, 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) 17:57, 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) 18:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha, no arguments so getting personal. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment – If not independently notable, then a redirect to Miss Peru would be functional, as this is a valid search term. North America1000 02:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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, st170e talk 04:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and then Redirect because there's clearly nothing to suggest this can later be a better acceptable article but can still be redirected since it's a likely search, nothing convincing to actually suggest keeping the contents. SwisterTwister   talk  02:02, 9 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.