Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cayman Islands at major beauty pageants

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 delete. Notwithstanding the concern raised about whether the grouped nominations was the best way to proceed, the consensus in this one (and previous ones) seems clear. RL0919 (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cayman Islands at major beauty pageants

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Additional articles:

On 31 July Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belize at major beauty pageants closed as delete as a non notable list. This list was part of a series of articles about nations at major beauty pageants. Since these are, in my opinion, exactly the same notability wise I'm nominating all 146 articles that are part of that series (see Category:Nations at beauty pageants) for deletion in sets of 10 with a set per day to avoid overloading AFD with these articles. (see User:Asartea/Pageants AFD for a full list of AFD's) -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 04:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the nominator (in terms of notability) but I query whether this is the right way to go about it. 146 articles in groups of ten means 15 AfDs (right?) and they all require consensus to go the same way... not just in terms of that group of 10, but in terms of the group of 15 AfDs. Otherwise, one going against the trend is reason to disregard consensus at each of the others for fear of missing a bloc of 10 from a group of 146 similar articles, or retaining 10 and deleting the other 136. The fact that this can only be raised AfD-by-AfD (which I won't do) is symptomatic of the issue. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, all the remaining articles should just be done in one AfD. And you're also going rapid-fire on this. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? I'm open to an alternative way of doing this. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 05:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI? This is such a huge effort that it would likely require multiple admins to close and manage the deletions. That sort of team effort is something that is probably worth raising in a forum where you're guaranteed multiple admin eyes. Again, I endorse the effort itself. I agree with what you're suggesting. But we probably need a broader community contribution to get it done. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per precedent. WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection information with no notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. As for the procedural questions, I am personally in favor of the way Asartea is going about this (i.e. batch by batch), since going to ANI/AN is going to create a gigantic mess of biblical proportions before anything substantial gets done. However Asartea, feel free to let me know if I can be useful in this process, including by preparing the ANI/AN report. JBchrch talk 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all More lists we do not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These lists are superflous.TH1980 (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the above justification. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:54, 9 August 2021 (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.