Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Globe International (2nd nomination)

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Globe International

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

Reads like advertising and fancruft based on related sources The Banner talk 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion in 2010. I closed that discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Globe International) as Keep based on reliable news sources that User:Drmies found. At that time I also cleaned up the article and removed contentious BLP material, leaving it like this: [1]. I got involved again in Jan & Feb 2011, cleaning it up as it had drifted into a long list: [2]. This time I left it like this: [3], which includes the concern tags that it relies a lot on primary sources. I also moved the name from Miss Globe International to Miss Globe Organisation based on my research. In 2013 there was another Afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Globe Organisation, based on this version [4]. There was no support for the nomination, and two keeps. The discussion was closed as No consensus. In March of this year an IP editor changed the Miss Globe International redirect into a duplicate article: [5]. So now we have two articles with the same content, but different names. My suggestion is that the redirect is restored, and the discussion takes place on the article with the editing history: Miss Globe Organisation, which would make this the third AfD on this article. Now, there are a number of mentions of the Miss Globe pageants: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc, plus the numerous foreign language sources. As has been brought up in previous discussions, the Miss Globe pageants do get media coverage, sufficient to meet our notability guidelines: that is, it has had significant coverage in several independent reliable sources - nothing major, but just enough. The problem is not so much the notability of the pageants, but the messy nature of the article, and that nobody is willing and able to sit down with the article and write it up properly. Added to which is the very vague information regarding the history of the pageant. The claim by the organisers is that it goes back to 1925. I couldn't find much on that. And just now I came upon this blog: [11], which feels that there is no real history going back to 1925. Interesting. However - while the article is problematic, it does meet notability guidelines. So this will be a Keep from me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at current sources it appears that Miss Globe International would be the better name for the article. I think it changed name in 2011 to Miss Globe Organisation, but has since gone back to Miss Globe International. What I propose doing is renaming Miss Globe Organisation to Miss Globe International, and then merging the history as appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable, passes WP:GNG with significant coverage as shown by Silk Tork. Kraxler (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination was for advertising and fancruft based on related sources... The Banner talk 18:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs editing not deletion. As above the topic has sufficient coverage to establish notability and I see SilkTork has sorted out the duplication of articles. While the article needs improving it is not the "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" that the deletion policy would say we should delete. Davewild (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2015 (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.