Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beauty pageants

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Beauty pageants. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Beauty pageants|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Beauty pageants. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from August 2016) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beauty pageants/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Beauty pageants

Misters of Nigeria

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources all appear to be WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA 🄻 🄰 17:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Nigeria. 🄻 🄰 17:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sorry, I don't get it. This is a clear-cut WP:GNG pass. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you review the citations? They all seem to fail as reliable sources and appear promotional as per WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. 🄻 🄰 21:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve reviewed ALL the sources and it is extremely bold to bundle ALL of them as unreliable because the tone seems to be promotional to you. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, which ones do you think are reliable? 🄻 🄰 07:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones do you think are not reliable? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN states that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they are reliable. Which ones do you think are reliable? 🄻 🄰 16:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Due to discussion had elsewhere, I think your judgment is biased and would not discuss anything further with you. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: there are enough reliable sources in the article to establish notability FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Sounds a bit promotional, but clean up isn't deletion at all. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: There are enough WP: GNG sources. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Generally NAWARD is now discontinued. And this subject passes GNG. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Moot‎. Article deleted under WP:CSD#G5. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand at the Big Four beauty pageants

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This merely reiterates the winners tables already found at Miss Thailand World, Miss Universe Thailand, Miss Thailand International, Miss Thailand, Miss Earth Thailand, and related predecessor pageants. Because the contents are pretty much identical (side-by-side presentation of data on participants at the Big Four international beauty pageants, even with identical formatting and all) consensus is pretty much rock solid for deleting them as WP:IINFO and WP:SYNTH, and due to the consensus shown by the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belize at major beauty pageants precedent and 100+ subsequent debates over similar "Country at major beauty pageants" articles, some links at Special:Permalink/1036690997, Special:Permalink/1037877047, and Special:Permalink/1038545583 especially 87 pageant country articles bundled under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France at major beauty pageants.

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reasons apply, WP:IINFO and WP:SYNTH:

I am bundling the article(s) listed above for identical reasons. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Thai article has been speedied as G5, though Bangladesh at major beauty pageants is still up for discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relative to that, the remaining article in this nom merely reiterates material found at Miss Bangladesh, Miss Earth Bangladesh , Miss Universe Bangladesh, and Miss World Bangladesh and, in fact, redundant tables for each of those appear at #International pageants. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bri, this is not formatted correctly as a bundled nomination. You can't just list an article, you have to use the appropriate codes. See WP:AFD for multiple nominations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Understood; I applied {{la}}, that is the missing formatting, I think. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bharat Sundari

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ALS, no evidence of notability. The beauty pageant organization existed from 1968 to 1975 (lacks factual evidence), with 5 representatives sent to Miss World, two of whom were semi-finalists and one placed as 4th runner-up. While this might be covered in offline sources, given India's success in Miss World, the coverage to support the organization's credibility for Wikipedia is questionable. I reviewed few sources, but they are all unreliable and lacks SigCov. Fails WP:GNG. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Beauty pageants, India, and Haryana. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nande Mabala

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sockpuppets and likely LOUTSOCK IPs are repeatedly eliminating a redirect, so instead of edit warring I am seeking an AfD consensus to establish a redirect to Miss South Africa 2023. The subject is not a pageant winner, and any notability she has appears to be WP:BLP1E for her placing in that pageant; the coverage that exists is WP:ROUTINE and there is no WP:SIGCOV for a WP:GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and South Africa. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Why redirect in the first place? Edit warring and sock are not ground for deletion. Deal with the users and IP adequately. I also don't think WP:BLP1E applies here. The subject is a model, just like how a musician can be a one hit wonder. She is clearly notable and discussed in multiple RS, meaning she pass WP:GNG. A simple Google search is enough, I'm not gonna try to reference the whole internet here. dxneo (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you supply the specific sources you believe constitute SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources to pass GNG? I didn’t find any in my BEFORE, just mentions of her pageant career that didn’t go into substantial depth. P.S. Editor disagreements over a redirect are indeed a valid reason for an AfD discussion per WP:BLAR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I think I'll be back here on the 30th. Can't perform a full search rn, but she did headline multiple RS. Ciao! dxneo (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen a lot of secondary reliable source with a significant coverage. I'm wondering how you nominated this article for deletion because what didn't tally with I knew on Wikipedia. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6] are enough to establish notability, as such it pass GNG [[Special:Contributions 102.91.92.110 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC) — 102.91.92.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Nope, your first, second, and fourth sources are tabloid coverage, and per WP:SBST, tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. The third source is a Q&A interview and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. The fifth source is not an journalistically independent publication; it's a local booster/hotel room magazine. The sixth source, while not a Q&A, is composed almost entirely of quotes from Mabala and appears to based solely on an interview with her and is thus also a primary source. We're not at the point of WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG yet. By the way, since this is the first time this IP address has edited Wikipedia, can I ask what accounts you've previously used? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to discuss this "interview is a primary source" thing, because that's where information normally comes from. If another publication quotes that interview, no one would say it's "primary". If the interview was published by a reliable source, then it's most definitely reliable. dxneo (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not on my laptop so not going to type a full reply, but between this recent long discussion thread and WP:INTERVIEWS, there’s a robust consensus that merely being interviewed does not make one notable and that any content that is entirely or almost entirely dependent on an interview with the subject is not independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll comment on the notability of the subject in the next few days. dxneo (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources mentioned above, there are feature articles about her in the Sowetan, Dispatch, Worcester Standard, Star, and IOL. Plus coverage in the Sunday Times. Sure, a lot of the content is from interviews with Mabala, but these are by no means straight Q&A and are about as hard-hitting as you can expect of journalism about beauty pageants. I doubt that many models would pass WP:GNG if only investigative journalism qualified as secondary sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Jlalbion (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of not appearing to bludgeon the discussion I’ll refrain from further comments in this discussion, other than to say that I reviewed these additional sources in my BEFORE and did not find them to pass the bar of independence (as single source interviews) or of SIGCOV (as tabloid coverage). I don’t edit much on beauty pageants and perhaps there is a local consensus at AfD on sourcing for pageant participants that I’m unaware of, so I’ll let the community decide without further input. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is an apparent consensus to Keep, there are valid questions on whether or not sources provided supply SIGCOV. I think editors familiar with content creation know the limits of accepting interviews as secondary sources which depend on the content of the interview and if there is any independent content aside from the Q&A occurring.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions