Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Queen of India


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Miss Queen of India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sockpuppet investigations/Shiyasnazar, please send complaints to User: ‎Amatulic for the need to open an afd for an obvious g5 csd Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By all means, please do. Sockpuppet investigation has not yet been completed, so this is premature. Will delete in accordance with WP:CSD depending on the ouctome. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * IF you are so blind or unwilling to see the SPI you can't see the duck test then you shouldn't have the mop. What you are doing now is trying to hide the fact that you didn't do even the slightest due diligence from the tag which you could have easily done. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And now we have a WP:CIVIL violation. Keep it up. Are you trying to get yourself blocked? My due diligence consisted of noting that no evidence was presented in the G5 tag or the edit summary, and an allegation was made in SPI with no outcome. The duck test was not clear to me either. You multi-tagged the article with A7, G5, and G11, all of which are clearly inappropriate, if you read the criteria for each. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hell, I have done a lot of work on it and I'm nobody's sock. Please, let the AfD go its own way, it is the most sensible and transparent starting point at the moment. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I know you aren't a sock, I appreciate the fact of what you are doing even if I disagree with the outcome. What I do not appreciate is administrative laziness or inability to understand policies clearly. I've tried assuming good faith and I came up with three possibilities none of them good. 1. They didn't even look 2. They are unfamiliar with CSD policy or 3 they don't care. I do not appreciate being accused of not doing due diligence on an article, or that I have broken a rule that apparently User:Amatulic has made up out of thin air. I've asked for justification on his supposed warning to me on his page. I plan on taking it to ANI if I don't get a response shortly. The fact that you are asking for an AFD means we will have one and I will format the deletion rationale in a few minutes when I calm down a little. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin as well and I don't see anything what User:Amatulic did wrong. Read carefully WP:G5. It says specifically that G5 should not be applied to pages which have substantial edits by others. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Incompetence or laziness to start. Those are literally the only things this can be, let me explain why, (on the surface you are correct in your assessment) however compare [] that's the original vs the current. The only difference is you added a couple sources. I understand that is also an important part of notability but those are your only contributions which therefore, at least in my opinion, the core of the content is still sock created. Now jump in User:Amatulic, where in his role as administrator he should review the csd. What is the process for contesting deletion? It is to check the rationale on the talkpage of the article which the now confirmed sock had a rationale right below that I also posted the SPI link for the reviewing admin (i assumed good faith they would actually do what they should)[].  He not only ignores the other criteria but he accuses me of not providing any evidence...For fucks sake if he looked at the name on SPI Shiyasnazar  and the sock Shiyasnazarptpm, it's not rocket science to say "wow this is the same user". Instead he wants to cover his incompetence by warning me for disruptive editing when a simple, "hey you know what I missed that, my bad. let's wait until the spi is complete and then we can." Instead this fucking guy wants to warn me for disruption. I don't think so! Even in disagreement with you, I stated why I thought you were wrong and we had a productive discourse, instead this dude wants to stay on the wrong side of WP:CIR at least what it appears like. That's what I am taking to ANI if he doesn't reply. Saying that he is incompetent may be harsh but negligent is not. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have replied, above, and on my talk page. If you want to talk about competence in the ANI case, be sure to mention yours regarding proper application of CSD tags A7, G5, and G11, which was disruptive. I apologize if my edit summary rationale seemed lazy, but the fact is, your tagging was out of line, and disruptive. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let;s play connect the dots than, [] I nominated the article with two sources. Unique is owned by the Pageant owner, therefore that is not a source that is separate that can't be used to established notability. No reason you should know that unless you've been involved with the SPI since it started like I have. No you state that the tags A7 and G11 was disruptive. I find that odd considering you didn't object here [] and only until I asked you to do a decent job researching did you grab for it like a man falling off a cliff. Now this SPI could have easily been decided on Username and editing habits similarities, instead you ignored this and decided to accuse me of not providing evidence when you didn't even ask. So there again how did I cause this problem? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete, this was a recreation by a sockpuppet. The article has had a couple sources added from the original CSD. Unique should be ignored out of hand, it is a publication directed and or owned by the owner of the project. The sources in my opinion doesn't really establish this as a notable event. The coverage is trival and not really about the pageant at all. My personal opinion is that this article also should not be included in the encyclopedia because it also encourages socking behaviors(I am perfectly aware that may not be a valid deletion rationale at afd just my opinion). In previous iteration the sock has stated they are employed by the owner and have the only permission to write about the pageants. In an odd irony I am too lazy to dig up that particular diff at this moment but if someone needs to see it ping me and I'll search it down if it's not deleted because I think it was a talkpage rationale on a deleted article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for the above reasons, plus the sources are space fillers, almost certainly based on press releases from the subject. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but the competition is noted by Indian media, which suggests it is not entirely unimportant. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant independent coverage of the pageant in The Hindu and other mainstream national Indian publications clearly meet WP:GNG. 108.65.78.29 (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources, as per WP:GNG. The pieces in 'the hindu' show no sign of journalistic insight, only reproduced quotes and press releases. If coverage is found and refs add to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2014 (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.