Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organization of Miss Universe 2016


 * 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 redirect to Miss Universe 2016. if we have merged we must keep the history and put in a redirect for attribution Spartaz Humbug! 10:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Organization of Miss Universe 2016

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unnecessary article, everything of notice is covered on Miss Universe 2016. Simply fancruft. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 09:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 09:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 09:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Miss Universe 2016 per WP:CFORK. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect but strong oppose to deletion. It isn't "simply fancruft" and may be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as the article has credible reliable citations (many of them from national newspapers). The article focuses on the event organization aspect of the event. But I agree it is preferable that the content be merged back to the main article.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Undecided. There's a lot more here than just fancruft and, if the article is not to be kept, we should be talking about a "merge and redirect" and not simply a "redirect".  The on/off nature of the negotiations does seem encyclopedic, especially given the complications caused by Duterte's "kill the drug addicts like Hitler killed the Jews" comment.  But even if we left out the silly stuff like the table of committee members, would merging the useful information make the target article too large?  If so, then a separate article is justifiable under the provisions of WP:SPINOUT.  I'll need to take a closer look at this before coming to a decision, but I'm posting here anyway in hopes of receiving some comments on this point.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge Just to clarify my stance. To add for a lack of better comparison. Organization aspects of big sporting events that the casual fan or viewer doesn't care (host selection and bidding, inspections, branding (provided this is presented in an objective non press-release tone) are covered in the FIFA World Cup, Olympics and the like. In my opinion, there is this POV I encounter in the past that content should be trimmed because the past editions had lack of content (just results and placings, and contestant lists) and the main article should be the same which I find ridiculous. Or they personally find pageants as something that does not belong to an encyclopedia and tolerates the results as a compromise. This is just my perception though. I'm not a fan of pageants in general myself but I recognize it as something that at least the Philippine media finds as something as significant in the national level to go over WP:ROUTINE coverage.


 * Back to the article in question itself. The role of Rodrigo Duterte (in allowing the event, and making remarks that nearly cost the host country's hosting rights), the drug war, and other content adds something to the Miss Universe 2016 article beyond merely tables and results which is a perennial issue for most pageant articles (since Wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATS, context should be given). So merge is preferable.


 * Maybe this edition in particular satisfies WP:GNG while other editions may just rely on the fact that Miss Universe competition as a major pageant for their notability. Or they are just poorly sourced. Systemic bias may also at play here since the Philippines is one of the countries with a large pageant fanbase compared to the rest of the world.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

cI am a member of WP:Beauty pageants, so by no means am I anti-pageant. My concern with this article was something you brought up. The Philippines are the most pageant happy nation in the world, and there is no doubt that many Filipinos like to edit about pageantry on Wikipedia. However, when Miss Universe 2016 was held in the Philippines many Filipinos began giving it undue weight and adding things that didn't belong in an article, purely because it was Philippines-related and they wanted to include it. That's what I interpreted this article as: unnecessary additions purely because Filipino fans are overly enthusiastic. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that you have this concern. What are precisely the things you find unnecessary? I may have been overenthusiastic myself. Most of the content other than the table were added by me (though I acknowledge that I don't own this or the parent article), my perception was most other users made some minor grammar fixes and engage in edit wars on the pageant contestants' hometowns and other trivial statistics. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Miss Universe 2016 . I've taken a closer look at both articles.  The "parent" article has an organization section that runs to about 200 words.  And much of that duplicates what is here in the instant article.  The only major points covered here (and not in the parent article) are (i) the detail about the near-cancellations, (ii) detail about the venues considered, but not chosen, for the ancillary events, and (iii) the table of members of the organizing committee.  If we don't merge the table, and merge in a trimmed discussion of the ancillary venues, then the organization section of the parent article will clock in at between 500 and 600 words.  That's not too large. Between now and tomorrow, I'll take a stab at performing that merge.  If it passes muster with everyone here, then perhaps we can turn to the question of whether we even need the redirect (because the instant article's title really isn't a plausible search term). As before, comments on this approach will be welcome.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've done the merge, pretty much along the lines I outlined in my last posting.  I didn't bring in anything from the Ancillary Venues discussion, because a lot of that was up-to-the-minutes reports of things that might happen at places that might be chosen.  Of course, if any of these things actually did take place, then someone else can add that to the target article.  But right now, I'm not seeing anything else in the instant article that can be usefully merged, so I'm changing my recommendation to "Delete".  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Thank you for you work, NewYorkActuary. The article can be deleted now.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2018 (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.