Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Philippines Earth 2015


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Miss Philippines Earth 2015

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reads like a crystal ball and advertising. No sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - What is the major issue with this article that we are to consider when discussing deletion? It surprises me that Miss Philippines Earth (or any beauty pageant) has a wikipedia article for each year, but apparently that's the way it's done. It appears that there is a stand alone article for each year of Miss Philippines Earth and the ones I looked at do not have any issues with sourcing. I suspect after the pageant occurs, there will be plenty of reliable sources to add to the article so I don't really have any worries that this article will be fully and reliably sourced the way the other ones are. Perhaps it's a little early to have it in mainspace. Personally, I would keep it in my sandbox until the pageant, but it's only a couple months out, so it's not unreasonably early. Do you think we should delete the article and re-create the article in 2 months? Bali88 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't fault User:The Banner for being absolutely ignorant of reliable sources in the Philippines, but the Philippine Star and the Freeman are reputable newspapers, and the Philippine Information Agency is the government's news agency. Rappler has its faults but usually passes RS often enough to be consider reliable. Missphilippinesearth.com looks like a primary source and should only be used on things such as candidates lists, which what was done here. – H T  D  15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please keep your PAs to yourself? Thanks.
 * When you start looking properly, you can see the part about the pageant itself is absolutely unsourced. It is only the list of entrants that have sources and most of those those sources are related so prove nothing. The Banner talk 20:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

For sure the pageant will draw more attention as the pageant progresses. --Richie Campbell (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are several third party verifiable sources that support the article. Actually, some of the participants are drawing attention in various newspapers in the country of origin (and even in other countries) in their participation to the pageant . The following articles are examples:
 * Rappler source
 * The Times of India source
 * Philippine Daily Inquirer source
 * Philippine Entertainment Portal source
 * ABS-CBN News source
 * Philippine Information Agency source
 * Rappler source
 * Philippine Star source
 * Baguio Midland Courier source
 * Kicker Daily News source
 * Cagayan de Oro and Misamis Oriental News source
 * Keep I agree with Richie Campbell, with these sources,  ,,, , , , , , , , , the article subject has significant coverage over multiple WP:RS and crosses the threshold of notability.     WordSeventeen (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article has no reliable sources about the pageant itself... The Banner talk 21:42, 5 April 2015 (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.