Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss World 2010


 * 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. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 13:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Miss World 2010

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nb667ahm5h (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per WP:CRYSTAL, Miss World 2010 is notable and and verifiable. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."  Matt  (  Talk  )   07:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep If all Miss World pageants from 1969 to 2008 have an article, there is no reason to believe an article for 2009 won't been wanted.  Linguist At Large  09:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this subject is inherently notable, and can be verified. Richard Cavell (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not speculative at all. The Miss World organization has mentioned the plans and several media outlets cover it too. The article currently lists no independent sources, but they can clearly be found. _ Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - This article is notable. The Miss World 2010 is definitely an even which we all are waiting for. This article has been started to provide information about the upcoming event. This is a widely accepted event n article will be helpful for the public. There are reliable links provided. Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I'm a little confused on this one; the 2009 contest, being the next upcoming pageant, would certainly be notable as a future event certain to occur, and I see that the Miss World 2009 article has dozens of references and detailed information. Miss World 2010, in contrast, has a blurb and a link to the official website. If there are reliable sources that talk about the 2010 event, then I'd be happy to switch to a Keep, but I'm just not seeing any independent, reliable sources - and a search of google news reveals nothing about the 2010 event. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's sort of what I'm talking about: Super Bowl XLV, the 2011 Super Bowl, has detailed information and - most importantly! - references. Future Olympic Games do as well. I know this event will occur, and I know that the information is likely to be accurate - but I can't see keeping it without sources. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:SOFIXIT page exists for a reason. If an article is lacking sources, the first attempt to fix it should be to add them. If someone leaves the articles with WP:ARS it's probably referenced within two weeks or less. - Mgm|(talk) 20:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, I attempted to do so - and noted the fact, above, when I was unable to find any that would seem to fit the requirements of our Reliable Sources policy. If they exist, I have yet to find them. Three additional links have been added since I commented, though I haven't had a chance to look into them; one is to a blog, which wouldn't typically be a WP:RS. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is sourced, meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources are attainable, no doubt, since Miss World itself is such a highly publicised event. The subject meets notability guidelines, and also is verifiable. (WP:SOFIXIT) &mdash; neuro(talk) 03:32, 16 December 2008 (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.