Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Universe Organization (2nd nomination)


 * 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 merge to Miss Universe. j⚛e deckertalk 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Miss Universe Organization
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No doubt that the pageant is notable but the organisation behind it seems to fail WP:GNG. Seems a bit advertising and link-building through the back door. The Banner talk 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge into Miss Universe There's no significant coverage of this organization to show it should have its own article, but I think it could definitely go with the competition it runs. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect into Miss Universe Per above. Cheetah255 (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge what little unique content exists into Miss Universe then Redirect to same. There's an argument to be made for the organization itself having notability as it has drawn news coverage independent of the individual pageants it owns but I'll leave it for another motivated editor to find the sources and craft the prose, should they so choose. I see from the first AfD that we're rapidly approaching the 10th anniversary of the last pledge to merge this article so merging/redirecting for now is the path of least harm. - Dravecky (talk) 05:52, 21 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.