- 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. There is not a lot of participation here but I see a consensus to Keep the article and a good faith effort to find sources. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mrs. Globe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I recently closed the third nomination as delete as the keep side did not respond to evidence this failed the GNG. Since then, some further sources have been provided that require discussion.
The sources provided are: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
&
[1] [2] [3] etc.
The second requires a Wikipedia Library Account Spartaz Humbug! 05:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This is degenerating into a fiasco. The previous nomination's closure as "delete" was bizarre given that no one except the original nominator agreed (there were various keeps and comments and a burst of activity at ANI). That nomination was itself odd because it was only a month after the second, procedurally-closed by Liz who gave some valuable advice on how to carry out an AfD. It's a pity the advice hasn't been heeded. Here we are again with a nomination that doesn't actually say why the article should be deleted (or not?). Please could we have a coherent statement of what is wrong with the article, the grounds for deletion? Elemimele (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- And this is precisely what was wrong with the last discussion. If you ignore the question of whether the sources are good enough you ceed the argument to the delete voters. Someone needs to do a proper source analysis then voters agree whether it's correct or not. That's how you resolve this forever but it's more fun to be a keyboard warrior and throw stones than do the basics properly. Spartaz Humbug! 14:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Those voting keep not directly addressing GNG does not mean that those who want it deleted automatically win, especially when the only person who wanted it deleted is a single-purpose account whose only wave coming close to GNG was
I do not see a notable pageant
(not directly addressing GNG, either) – that previously closure of yours was completely illogical – I honestly don't understand how you could have possibly thought that "delete" was the consensus. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)- I'm inclined to agree. And closing as delete, not deleting, but instead renominating for deletion only three days later, is a completely strange approach to handling an AfD. Spartaz, if you personally weren't happy that sources had been adequately discussed in the last AfD, so far as I'm aware the correct thing to do would be to join in the discussion by carrying out a source analysis or commenting on sources (and then leave someone else to close it). Or alternatively you could have adopted the clerking/admin role and relisted it with a comment that a source analysis would be helpful. Elemimele (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Those voting keep not directly addressing GNG does not mean that those who want it deleted automatically win, especially when the only person who wanted it deleted is a single-purpose account whose only wave coming close to GNG was
- And this is precisely what was wrong with the last discussion. If you ignore the question of whether the sources are good enough you ceed the argument to the delete voters. Someone needs to do a proper source analysis then voters agree whether it's correct or not. That's how you resolve this forever but it's more fun to be a keyboard warrior and throw stones than do the basics properly. Spartaz Humbug! 14:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - All 5 of these are full on lengthy articles about the competition - 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. This one here is another good article on the competition and one of its competitors. This is also another decently sized article on the pageant here. This talks about some of the people in the 2012 pagaeant, and talks about its history and varoious details of it. It also mentions that there was more information on the Desert Sun's newspaper about it, though that link appears to be long gone. There's a nice long article on it and the Canadian qualifiers here. There also a nice long article on one of the winners here and the competition itself here. I think this is more than enough, and if you look through the other language wikipedia articles on this, there's more sources as well. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Beauty pageants, Belarus, and Russia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't care a bit about pageants, but this one is clearly notable and I felt I had to participate because of a truly nonsensical closure in the last discussion. There's plenty of coverage of this - Spartaz said on their talk page that its "all local," but, really, is it? E.g. The Leader-Post (a major Canadian newspaper), The Desert Sun (California, U.S. - 2), The Sault Star (another Canadian paper), Asbury Park Press (New Jersey, U.S.), The News & Advance (Virginia, U.S.), plenty more on Newspapers.com - and that's just from the US and Canada, I'm sure there's plenty more from other countries (the APP one mentions that "it is a much bigger deal around the world than it is in the U.S."). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (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.