Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuestra Belleza San Luis Potosí


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  13:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Nuestra Belleza San Luis Potosí

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

local preliminary round for a national pageant. Fails WP:GNG and unsourced. The Banner talk 21:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment (changed from Delete) non-notable local pageant, WP:FANCRUFT Kraxler (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 *  Wait Keep  Although the WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants doesn't have explicit guidelines for notability, its mission statement tells us that they are looking to create articles covering state, national and international pageants.  And San Luis Potosi is a state of Mexico.  The real issue is whether the list can ever be reliably sourced.  I don't know, but here's something to consider -- at some point in the past, someone started a series of articles on the annual pageants.  There were only three -- 2010, 2011, and 2012 -- and not all of them were sourced.  But at least one was.  I'll be happy to add those sources to the instant article.  But beyond that, I'll defer to the folks at the WikiProject.  The project page has a section alerting its members to articles that are up for deletion and so, if anyone there really cares about this article, they can come on over and start filling in the other sources.  And if not, we can revisit the question of deletion.  By the way, it's those three annual articles that really seem non-notable.  In the near future, I'll be proposing them for deletion.   NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Of the three articles on the annual pageants, only one was reliably sourced; the other two had (i) a dead link and (ii) somebody's blog. I've added the one useful link to the instant article, as well as a 'citations-needed' box at the top of the page.  I also went to the article on the national pageant and, from there, randomly looked at three of the annual articles for the 1990s.  Not a one of them was reliably sourced.  Frankly, if the folks at WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants can't be bothered to reliably source the national pageant, it seems unlikely that they will ever get around to fixing the state-level pageants.  I'll keep my vote as "Wait", but I can see changing that to "Delete" if the question comes up again.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A dozen state pageants have been dleted lately, because there was no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. (aka failed GNG) and there's also WP:GEOSCOPE. Kraxler (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. Your citing of WP:GeoScope gave me pause to think and, as I was thinking, it occurred to me that this same argument could be used against any of the state-level pageants in the Miss America or Miss USA competitions.  So I checked several of the pages for those state-level pageants and found that some of them are in as bad shape, source-wise, as the instant article.  Others did have a good deal more sourcing, but only from local newspapers.  So, if your arguments are good enough to delete the instant article, they ought to be good enough to delete a goodly number of Miss America and Miss USA articles.  And yet, those articles continue to exist.  I'm aware that 'other stuff exists' is not a compelling counter-argument, but I'm not pointing to any random collection of 'other stuff' -- I'm pointing to a series of articles that are directly comparable to the instant article.  It also bears noting that, earlier this year, someone nominated  Miss_South_Dakota for deletion on essentially the same grounds being proposed here.  The consensus  there was to keep.  So, the appropriate outcome here also is to keep.  To do otherwise would have us subjecting the Mexican state-level pageants to a tougher standard than we apply to the US state-level pageants.  And I'm just not comfortable with doing that.


 * I'm new here to Wikipedia and when I posted my first comment, I wasn't aware that these nominations had an expiration date. I see now that "Wait" is not a proper position and I've changed it to "Keep".  NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The proper course is to look for additional sources for this article, and nominate the badly sourced US states' pageants for deletion. We can not argue that because something else is wrong we should do it the wrong way here too. Caution, metaphor follows Try to tell a police officer who stops you for passing a red light that you have seen others doing it too, and that he can fine you only if he fines all other traffic violators also. We both know what the officer's answer will be. That's the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Metaphor ends here Kraxler (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that we are in the situation of agreeing on the nature of the problem, but disagreeing on how to solve it. Before I address that point, I'll address your metaphor.  It's a good metaphor, in that it succinctly describes why WP:OTHERSTUFF needs to be a guiding principle.  But in the instant case, you and I have played no significant role in the development of this article (my only contributions were the small edits I described above).  So, in your metaphor, you and I are playing the role of the police officer, not the driver.  You want to give the driver a ticket, and I'm pointing out that the last time somebody tried to give a driver a ticket for the very same thing, the court found them 'not guilty'.  And forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but your metaphor fails on another level -- running a red light can get somebody killed, but keeping an article on a beauty pageant ....
 * You and I have been debating the issue of under-sourcing. Although I'm new to Wikipedia, I've seen enough to suspect that under-sourcing is very rarely sufficient grounds for deletion.  You need to make the stronger argument that the reason the article is under-sourced is because proper sources simply don't exist.  But San Luis Potosi (the state) has a population of about three million and San Luis Potosi (the metropolitan area) has a population of about one million.  The city has newspapers and those newspapers almost certainly covered the pageants.  To satisfy myself on this point, I did some on-line checking.  I found that El Sol de San Luis has an on-line archive and that this archive includes articles on the pageant.  Indeed, I saw enough to convince myself that a Spanish-speaking editor could do on-line sourcing for this article going back at least as far as 2008, and could probably get that done within a half hour.  So, the sources do exist.  The problem here, as I noted in my first post, is that the good folks at the BeautyPageant Project are probably never going to get around to doing the work.  Is that a good enough reason to delete?  I presume you would say "yes".  Me, I'm not so sure.  In a few days, an administrator will come ambling by and we'll see what he or she thinks.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Being new here, I suggest you read WP:NEVENT, especially the section WP:GEOSCOPE. Coverage in local newspapers usually is not deemed sufficient to establish notability of an event. And, to show that there are indeed sources that cover the event, in any nespaper, please post a link here. It's not enough to say that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, it's necessary to show them. Kraxler (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. But rather than post those links here, I found it more efficient to simply add them to the subject article.  That had the benefit of giving me some experience with the news-article citation template.  And there is the additional benefit of demonstrating to the closing administrator that the subject article is indeed as well-sourced as the Miss_South_Dakota article.
 * I also followed your suggestion for re-reading WP:NEVENT. A closer reading shows that the guideline is not clear as to its scope of application.  The 'events' discussed there include crimes, accidents and weather-related events, none of which seem to be quite on-point with the discussion here.  But what you and I might think of that is not really the point.  The very existence of more than 100 articles on state-level US pageants suggests that the Wikipedia community has already decided that WP:NEVENT does not apply here.
 * Thanks again for your advice. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding the sources to the article is as good as showing them here. The closing admin will consider them. The NEVENT guideline applies to all events, without restrictions, those expressly mentioned there and those things that just are events. The existence of any number of other articles, as an AfD argument, is addressed in OTHERSTUFF. Although citing precedent of guideline usage, policy decisions, other AfDs and previous discussions is well accepted, the mere existence of other articles may be due to not having them nominated for deletion yet. We can not claim that other being wrong gives us the right to do it the wrong way too. Every AfD is to be considered on its own merits. As an aside, Wikipedia has now about 5 million articles, and at AfD appear about a 120 per day, you see, there may be lots of candidates for AfD out there, and not enough people to do the screening. Kraxler (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: an interesting facet of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS essay that is rarely mentioned is the part about "they [comparisons to other articles] may form part of a cogent argument". User:NewYorkActuary has made a cogent argument. That OTHERSTUFF is cited in the context of precedent set by AFD (i.e. consensus) and consistency (also a form of consensus) is logical and appropriate. I also take issue with the definition of "local" in this case, as has been pointed out San Luis Potosí (both city and state) are significant population centers. (on a side note, I for one am sick of this pageant AFD business, while we are throwing around essays perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT should be given consideration....) Vrac (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your argument about OTHERSTUFF, I've used the "may form part of a cogent argument" part a couple of times myself. Fact is that about a dozen of local (statewide) Mexican beauty pageant articles have been deleted recently, for lack of coverage. So, precedent would favor to delete in this case. If you analyze my last 500 AfD votes, I doubt that you will discover what I like and what I don't like, because the same type of topic/topic area may be, or may be not, notable, depending on a variety of circumstances, and my votes are always policy-guideline-based. There are noe 5 refs in the article, all from local newspapers. There seems to be no coverage outside this area. Besides, the articles are about five different particular editions of the event, not about the history or the actual organization of the event. It's still time to dig something up. Kraxler (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The IDONTLIKETHAT was a reference to the nominator, who, you'll have to admit, has a strange obsession with these things. The recent deletion of Mexican state pageants is more a reflection of general lack of knowledge/interest in Mexican topics than anything else.  I follow Mexico deletion sorting and I frequently see things get nominated that would be no-brainer keeps if it were the American equivalent.  Add in the fact that it's a beauty pageant and you get a double-death knell.  A more interesting precedent is NewYorkActuary's Articles for deletion/Miss South Dakota example (also nominated by guess who): an American state with about 1/3 the population of San Luis Potosí (and mostly rural to boot, the largest town in SD is barely a city by American standards); and yet it is snowball kept at AFD.  The South Dakota article is also referenced with local sources, sources that I would argue are way more "local" than the San Luis Potosí ones given the relative population size. Even the District of Columbia has a pageant article and it's not even a state. Dare I say it all smells a bit like systemic bias.... Vrac (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't been aware of the Miss South Dakota AfD, thanks for the link. Well, seeing voters say "statewide pageants are notable" in South Dakota, and nobody coming up with the same rationale at any of the Mexican pageants, does indeed look strange. Kraxler (talk) 22:33, 23 September 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.