- 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. While the !vote tally is fairly divided, there is significant policy-based support for keeping the articles as notable subjects, and these comments have not been successfully refuted. Arguments in favor of deletion are substantially weaker. The case for deletion comprises allegations of poor sourcing, COI editors, sockpuppetry, and "fancruft" and "spam". Even assuming all of these concerns are legitimate across every one of these articles, these are usually considered to be addressable problems that do not require article deletion, I'm not seeing much evidence to actually support these arguments, nor am I seeing much of a case being made to explain why the articles need to be deleted to rectify these concerns, legitimate though they may be. In sum, there is a rough consensus to keep. Regards, Swarm ♠ 22:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Miss Earth 2001
- Miss Earth 2001 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Miss Earth 2002 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2003 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2004 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2005 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2006 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2007 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2008 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2009 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2010 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2011 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2012 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2013 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2014 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2015 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All the marginally important data from these articles is found at List of Miss Earth titleholders and more general info at Miss Earth so the annual articles should be deleted, maybe turned into redirects. The excessive detail in the annual articles is poorly sourced WP:FANCRUFT and is highly promotional. The company is best understood in the context of the the Miss Earth article and the winners and runnerups are best understood in the context of the consolidated list of winners and others who place. Legacypac ( talk) 20:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all To add to the misery: all articles that I have checked (not all) showed sockpuppet activity. WP:RS seems something scary for the involved editors as they are seldom used. The whole series can be deleted as unreliable in my opinion. The Banner talk 01:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Granted, a look at this series of articles collectively does find some quality issues. But "to add to the misery" the proposal relies on the increasingly vague hackney of "highly promotional" and the substantially subjective brush of "FANCRUFT"; the support for deletion indicates that "not all" of the articles have been checked. Which ones were checked isn't specified, what specific sockpuppet activity was found isn't stated, and whether remediation is feasible isn't addressed in an informative way. As far as "no reliable sourcing" I found the claim to be erroneous, at least for 2001, which I did check. There are unsourced statements, and there are deadrefs, and there are other issues: all of which is, however, distinct from an unsourced article. Then there is the thorn that we never, ever allow in AfD: the thorn of common sense cross-article comparison. It would be common sense, even if we put on our jaded blinkers and follow AfD protocol, to look at the similar annual entries for the other three pageants in the
Big Four international beauty pageants. Which I did, and they do not seem dimensionally different. Respectfully, can we define what is irremediably "highly promotional" and "FANCRUFT" about this series of articles? So that's my initial comments, not an actual final opinion. I might look at the articles again a little tomorrow and clean up a little, but then again that would be actual salvage work.
FeatherPluma (
talk) 03:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Significant edits to these articles are from a big sock farm. I've not compared them to the other international pageant articles, but in general Wikipedia topic coverage is plagued with problems like unsourced content, overly promotional, excessive trivia, BLP violations and other problems. Many articles within the topic area were created and expanded by paid and COI editors working to promote their respective pageant companies. One good article is easier to maintain then a many single event ones full of problems. Legacypac ( talk) 04:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep: Highly notable pageants, sourced, deserves their pages just like any of the other Big 4 do.
{ [ ( jjj
1238 ) ] } 00:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- The other Big 4 are not relevent here, maybe they should be consolidated too but we are dealing with this series of articles. They are repetitive, lack sources for their claims, and I have checked them all. The reader could understand the topic much better without all the excessive detail. Another problem is these list all kinds of other award winners, but the minor awards winners are not notable.
Legacypac (
talk) 07:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am wrong, but is seems that Jj1238 is requesting deletion of the year pages of the other Big Four pageants too!
The Banner
talk 16:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'll support that plan. There are problems with writing articles about 2 hour events. What can you really say of substance?
Legacypac (
talk) 18:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are articles about football games and soccer matches, all of which are of similar duration, as well as for individual horse races that take a few minutes and runnings of the 100m dash that take a few seconds. Are you arguing that Wikipedia policy requires deletion of anything about an event that takes less than a day? Alansohn ( talk) 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'll support that plan. There are problems with writing articles about 2 hour events. What can you really say of substance?
Legacypac (
talk) 18:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am wrong, but is seems that Jj1238 is requesting deletion of the year pages of the other Big Four pageants too!
The Banner
talk 16:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- The other Big 4 are not relevent here, maybe they should be consolidated too but we are dealing with this series of articles. They are repetitive, lack sources for their claims, and I have checked them all. The reader could understand the topic much better without all the excessive detail. Another problem is these list all kinds of other award winners, but the minor awards winners are not notable.
Legacypac (
talk) 07:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
K eep all:any fancruft, promotional language or lack of sources is not a valid deletion reason WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I'm not convinced that these lack notability. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)-
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is just an essay. But the main thing is that the articles are prone to sockpuppets, meat puppets and SPAs and are largely based on unsuitable sources, too such a degree the the articles are unreliable.
The Banner
talk 13:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it's an essay but it recounts what the policy (including WP:DEL1) says about what is and is not a reason for deletion. And well, AfD is not sockpuppet investigation either. Sockpuppetry is serious, yes, but allegations shouldn't be made without evidence (and there are methods to obtain evidence). Pages should not be deleted pre-emptively for being prone to sockpuppet editing either. Pages are not even protected pre-emptively. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
-
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is just an essay. But the main thing is that the articles are prone to sockpuppets, meat puppets and SPAs and are largely based on unsuitable sources, too such a degree the the articles are unreliable.
The Banner
talk 13:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect all - This whole stuff looks like it is one of the dozens of other lobbying awareness beauty pageantries. If it is really the third largest of all, like the main article claims, why the other ones from the big three do not have this same sort of cruft attached to them...? I can not really see these prizes being worth of a semi-biographical article for each and every winner or event. I could not find additional notability from the articles themselves for these women, or for these events. WP:EVENT. Tereza Fajksová and Olga Álava for instance have their own articles already, and they deserve them for their own deeds. Ceosad ( talk) 16:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The whole lot exists because of a big paid groups p of SPA sock marketing effort to increase the profile of this company. That is well established theough past SPIs. Actual third party coverage for these events is limited to a few reprints of press releases on slow news days. Legacypac ( talk) 16:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC).
- Can you link us to the SPI case(s), Legacypac? Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep All WP:Fancruft is a piss-poor excuse for deletion; It's a mere essay that basically ads up to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT in slightly different words. These articles cover notable events, with ample coverage from reliable and verifiable sources around the Earth about the events. Alansohn ( talk) 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going to the effort to search and link- pick some major contributors and see if they are blocked or not. If there is amble reliable and verifiable sources upgrading the article to being fully cited should be easy.
Legacypac (
talk) 17:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I thought you said a sock puppet investigation.
WP:SPI is a formal process and findings are documented in the archives (a search came up with
one result that doesn't match your description). As for sources: eg.
Miss Earth 2001 has more than half a dozen and they aren't carbon copies of a press release, but written by journalists of major agencies and papers.
Finnusertop (
talk |
guestbook |
contribs) 17:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Related SPI-investigations are Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dosmil2011/Archive. And this is only the harvest of sockpuppets/sockpuppeteers once active on Miss Earth 2015... The Banner talk 17:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I thought you said a sock puppet investigation.
WP:SPI is a formal process and findings are documented in the archives (a search came up with
one result that doesn't match your description). As for sources: eg.
Miss Earth 2001 has more than half a dozen and they aren't carbon copies of a press release, but written by journalists of major agencies and papers.
Finnusertop (
talk |
guestbook |
contribs) 17:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going to the effort to search and link- pick some major contributors and see if they are blocked or not. If there is amble reliable and verifiable sources upgrading the article to being fully cited should be easy.
Legacypac (
talk) 17:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all: for spam by COI users. It would have been very useful to provide proof of sockpuppetry in the initial nomination, when allegations thereof are a crucial part of the nom. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect and move certain information of these in the Miss Earth article. - User:Supergabbyshoe 02:41, 15 December 2015 (PST)
- Delete for lack of substance, lack of substantive independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, and as unnecessary content forks. There is no need for a series of redirects as they all start with "Miss Earth". -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep All there are contributors that will include reliable independent sources. Opinions to delete are irrelevant, if we rely on your personal references, Wikipedia is no longer adhering to its policy. Refer to these essays if you are in a rush to delete these articles:
WP:DEADLINE
WP:NOEFFORT
WP:IDL
Viridian80 (
talk) 05:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The reliable sources should be given in the article, not just promised. When I throw in the efoort you want from me, it will mean removing all unsuitable sources leaving whole articles without sources. The effort to provide reliable sources should have be done by the editor who added the info. The Banner talk 10:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep All The nomination for deletion seems very suspicious as they seem to be identified as personal preferences and just belong in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Reliable sources such as official websites, news, and other sources are clearly present in Miss Earth articles. Miss Earth is an annual event like other beauty pageants such as Miss Universe, Miss World and Miss International. It is important for these events to have an article in Wikipedia for historical purposes. Miss Earth article introduces the pageant, pageant system and the main points of the pageant. However, articles like Miss Earth 2001 to Miss Earth 2015 discuss the events happened on the said year, the theme of the year and the annual results as well as the name of the contestants of the said year. It is clearly obvious that the these articles are different from the article Miss Earth. If Miss Earth articles have to be deleted, Miss Universe, Miss World and Miss International articles must also be deleted. User:Chburnett98 07:48 , 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep All to delete these articles would be like delete the Football World Cup articles. But no one would do that. Miss Earth is a BIG4 beauty pageant and falls under WP:GNG.
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not enough to justify deletion of a very well known beauty pageant.--
BabbaQ (
talk) 22:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- When you read the nomination properly, you see that Miss Earth itself is not nominated. Only the year-articles. The Banner talk 23:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have never mentioned the Miss Earth article itself. I mean the separate articles as well. I thought that was implied.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 23:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Football World Cup is a MUCH larger event then these annual pageants are. Here is a better example of a consolidated list Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants covering 52 pageants a year across many years. Legacypac ( talk) 23:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep All The articles passed WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Miss Earth is a notable pageant and deserves the annual articles just like the other Big 4 pageants: Miss World, Miss Universe, and Miss International. The key is to work on the articles and add reliable sources not to delete these articles. Take for example the article, Miss Earth 2003 has numerous acceptable sources such as BBC, The Associated Press, New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN News, Agence France Presse , TIME Magazine, Fox World, and etc. The Miss Earth 2008 article has numerous reliable sources from different news agencies all over the world in different languages for the delegates and this can be done in the other yearly-editions. I agree with the commenter, Chburnett98 that "the articles like Miss Earth 2001 to Miss Earth 2015 discuss the events happened on the said year, the theme of the year and the annual results as well as the name of the contestants of the said year. It is clearly obvious that the these articles are different from the article Miss Earth." I also agree with Legacypac, that the minor awards winners were not notable to be included in the articles and therefore be deleted, but the major awards in the articles should be retained with acceptable source.-- Richie Campbell ( talk) 03:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep all and work to fix the problems. While there are problems with the articles, and perhaps with the editors who contribute to them, deleting them because we don't like the sort of editors who are attracted to them, or because we don't like the subject matter, would amount to censorship of the worst kind. These articles are clearly notable, there are clearly plenty of reliable sources, and are clearly of interest to editors and readers alike. Jacona ( talk) 13:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep all: to me, all the articles of Miss Earth editions are notable. Let's just fix the sources which are unreliable. There are some contributors of the pageant who do not know what are the sources that should be included and should not be included. I believe other major pageants experience the same kind of sources, too. -- Artchino ( talk) 00:53, 18 December 2015 (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.
- 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. While the !vote tally is fairly divided, there is significant policy-based support for keeping the articles as notable subjects, and these comments have not been successfully refuted. Arguments in favor of deletion are substantially weaker. The case for deletion comprises allegations of poor sourcing, COI editors, sockpuppetry, and "fancruft" and "spam". Even assuming all of these concerns are legitimate across every one of these articles, these are usually considered to be addressable problems that do not require article deletion, I'm not seeing much evidence to actually support these arguments, nor am I seeing much of a case being made to explain why the articles need to be deleted to rectify these concerns, legitimate though they may be. In sum, there is a rough consensus to keep. Regards, Swarm ♠ 22:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Miss Earth 2001
- Miss Earth 2001 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Miss Earth 2002 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2003 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2004 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2005 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2006 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2007 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2008 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2009 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2010 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2011 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2012 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2013 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2014 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miss Earth 2015 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All the marginally important data from these articles is found at List of Miss Earth titleholders and more general info at Miss Earth so the annual articles should be deleted, maybe turned into redirects. The excessive detail in the annual articles is poorly sourced WP:FANCRUFT and is highly promotional. The company is best understood in the context of the the Miss Earth article and the winners and runnerups are best understood in the context of the consolidated list of winners and others who place. Legacypac ( talk) 20:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all To add to the misery: all articles that I have checked (not all) showed sockpuppet activity. WP:RS seems something scary for the involved editors as they are seldom used. The whole series can be deleted as unreliable in my opinion. The Banner talk 01:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Granted, a look at this series of articles collectively does find some quality issues. But "to add to the misery" the proposal relies on the increasingly vague hackney of "highly promotional" and the substantially subjective brush of "FANCRUFT"; the support for deletion indicates that "not all" of the articles have been checked. Which ones were checked isn't specified, what specific sockpuppet activity was found isn't stated, and whether remediation is feasible isn't addressed in an informative way. As far as "no reliable sourcing" I found the claim to be erroneous, at least for 2001, which I did check. There are unsourced statements, and there are deadrefs, and there are other issues: all of which is, however, distinct from an unsourced article. Then there is the thorn that we never, ever allow in AfD: the thorn of common sense cross-article comparison. It would be common sense, even if we put on our jaded blinkers and follow AfD protocol, to look at the similar annual entries for the other three pageants in the
Big Four international beauty pageants. Which I did, and they do not seem dimensionally different. Respectfully, can we define what is irremediably "highly promotional" and "FANCRUFT" about this series of articles? So that's my initial comments, not an actual final opinion. I might look at the articles again a little tomorrow and clean up a little, but then again that would be actual salvage work.
FeatherPluma (
talk) 03:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Significant edits to these articles are from a big sock farm. I've not compared them to the other international pageant articles, but in general Wikipedia topic coverage is plagued with problems like unsourced content, overly promotional, excessive trivia, BLP violations and other problems. Many articles within the topic area were created and expanded by paid and COI editors working to promote their respective pageant companies. One good article is easier to maintain then a many single event ones full of problems. Legacypac ( talk) 04:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep: Highly notable pageants, sourced, deserves their pages just like any of the other Big 4 do.
{ [ ( jjj
1238 ) ] } 00:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- The other Big 4 are not relevent here, maybe they should be consolidated too but we are dealing with this series of articles. They are repetitive, lack sources for their claims, and I have checked them all. The reader could understand the topic much better without all the excessive detail. Another problem is these list all kinds of other award winners, but the minor awards winners are not notable.
Legacypac (
talk) 07:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am wrong, but is seems that Jj1238 is requesting deletion of the year pages of the other Big Four pageants too!
The Banner
talk 16:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'll support that plan. There are problems with writing articles about 2 hour events. What can you really say of substance?
Legacypac (
talk) 18:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are articles about football games and soccer matches, all of which are of similar duration, as well as for individual horse races that take a few minutes and runnings of the 100m dash that take a few seconds. Are you arguing that Wikipedia policy requires deletion of anything about an event that takes less than a day? Alansohn ( talk) 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'll support that plan. There are problems with writing articles about 2 hour events. What can you really say of substance?
Legacypac (
talk) 18:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am wrong, but is seems that Jj1238 is requesting deletion of the year pages of the other Big Four pageants too!
The Banner
talk 16:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- The other Big 4 are not relevent here, maybe they should be consolidated too but we are dealing with this series of articles. They are repetitive, lack sources for their claims, and I have checked them all. The reader could understand the topic much better without all the excessive detail. Another problem is these list all kinds of other award winners, but the minor awards winners are not notable.
Legacypac (
talk) 07:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
K eep all:any fancruft, promotional language or lack of sources is not a valid deletion reason WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I'm not convinced that these lack notability. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)-
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is just an essay. But the main thing is that the articles are prone to sockpuppets, meat puppets and SPAs and are largely based on unsuitable sources, too such a degree the the articles are unreliable.
The Banner
talk 13:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it's an essay but it recounts what the policy (including WP:DEL1) says about what is and is not a reason for deletion. And well, AfD is not sockpuppet investigation either. Sockpuppetry is serious, yes, but allegations shouldn't be made without evidence (and there are methods to obtain evidence). Pages should not be deleted pre-emptively for being prone to sockpuppet editing either. Pages are not even protected pre-emptively. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
-
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is just an essay. But the main thing is that the articles are prone to sockpuppets, meat puppets and SPAs and are largely based on unsuitable sources, too such a degree the the articles are unreliable.
The Banner
talk 13:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect all - This whole stuff looks like it is one of the dozens of other lobbying awareness beauty pageantries. If it is really the third largest of all, like the main article claims, why the other ones from the big three do not have this same sort of cruft attached to them...? I can not really see these prizes being worth of a semi-biographical article for each and every winner or event. I could not find additional notability from the articles themselves for these women, or for these events. WP:EVENT. Tereza Fajksová and Olga Álava for instance have their own articles already, and they deserve them for their own deeds. Ceosad ( talk) 16:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The whole lot exists because of a big paid groups p of SPA sock marketing effort to increase the profile of this company. That is well established theough past SPIs. Actual third party coverage for these events is limited to a few reprints of press releases on slow news days. Legacypac ( talk) 16:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC).
- Can you link us to the SPI case(s), Legacypac? Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep All WP:Fancruft is a piss-poor excuse for deletion; It's a mere essay that basically ads up to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT in slightly different words. These articles cover notable events, with ample coverage from reliable and verifiable sources around the Earth about the events. Alansohn ( talk) 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going to the effort to search and link- pick some major contributors and see if they are blocked or not. If there is amble reliable and verifiable sources upgrading the article to being fully cited should be easy.
Legacypac (
talk) 17:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I thought you said a sock puppet investigation.
WP:SPI is a formal process and findings are documented in the archives (a search came up with
one result that doesn't match your description). As for sources: eg.
Miss Earth 2001 has more than half a dozen and they aren't carbon copies of a press release, but written by journalists of major agencies and papers.
Finnusertop (
talk |
guestbook |
contribs) 17:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Related SPI-investigations are Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dosmil2011/Archive. And this is only the harvest of sockpuppets/sockpuppeteers once active on Miss Earth 2015... The Banner talk 17:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I thought you said a sock puppet investigation.
WP:SPI is a formal process and findings are documented in the archives (a search came up with
one result that doesn't match your description). As for sources: eg.
Miss Earth 2001 has more than half a dozen and they aren't carbon copies of a press release, but written by journalists of major agencies and papers.
Finnusertop (
talk |
guestbook |
contribs) 17:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going to the effort to search and link- pick some major contributors and see if they are blocked or not. If there is amble reliable and verifiable sources upgrading the article to being fully cited should be easy.
Legacypac (
talk) 17:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all: for spam by COI users. It would have been very useful to provide proof of sockpuppetry in the initial nomination, when allegations thereof are a crucial part of the nom. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect and move certain information of these in the Miss Earth article. - User:Supergabbyshoe 02:41, 15 December 2015 (PST)
- Delete for lack of substance, lack of substantive independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, and as unnecessary content forks. There is no need for a series of redirects as they all start with "Miss Earth". -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep All there are contributors that will include reliable independent sources. Opinions to delete are irrelevant, if we rely on your personal references, Wikipedia is no longer adhering to its policy. Refer to these essays if you are in a rush to delete these articles:
WP:DEADLINE
WP:NOEFFORT
WP:IDL
Viridian80 (
talk) 05:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The reliable sources should be given in the article, not just promised. When I throw in the efoort you want from me, it will mean removing all unsuitable sources leaving whole articles without sources. The effort to provide reliable sources should have be done by the editor who added the info. The Banner talk 10:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep All The nomination for deletion seems very suspicious as they seem to be identified as personal preferences and just belong in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Reliable sources such as official websites, news, and other sources are clearly present in Miss Earth articles. Miss Earth is an annual event like other beauty pageants such as Miss Universe, Miss World and Miss International. It is important for these events to have an article in Wikipedia for historical purposes. Miss Earth article introduces the pageant, pageant system and the main points of the pageant. However, articles like Miss Earth 2001 to Miss Earth 2015 discuss the events happened on the said year, the theme of the year and the annual results as well as the name of the contestants of the said year. It is clearly obvious that the these articles are different from the article Miss Earth. If Miss Earth articles have to be deleted, Miss Universe, Miss World and Miss International articles must also be deleted. User:Chburnett98 07:48 , 16 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep All to delete these articles would be like delete the Football World Cup articles. But no one would do that. Miss Earth is a BIG4 beauty pageant and falls under WP:GNG.
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not enough to justify deletion of a very well known beauty pageant.--
BabbaQ (
talk) 22:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- When you read the nomination properly, you see that Miss Earth itself is not nominated. Only the year-articles. The Banner talk 23:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have never mentioned the Miss Earth article itself. I mean the separate articles as well. I thought that was implied.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 23:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Football World Cup is a MUCH larger event then these annual pageants are. Here is a better example of a consolidated list Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants covering 52 pageants a year across many years. Legacypac ( talk) 23:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep All The articles passed WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Miss Earth is a notable pageant and deserves the annual articles just like the other Big 4 pageants: Miss World, Miss Universe, and Miss International. The key is to work on the articles and add reliable sources not to delete these articles. Take for example the article, Miss Earth 2003 has numerous acceptable sources such as BBC, The Associated Press, New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN News, Agence France Presse , TIME Magazine, Fox World, and etc. The Miss Earth 2008 article has numerous reliable sources from different news agencies all over the world in different languages for the delegates and this can be done in the other yearly-editions. I agree with the commenter, Chburnett98 that "the articles like Miss Earth 2001 to Miss Earth 2015 discuss the events happened on the said year, the theme of the year and the annual results as well as the name of the contestants of the said year. It is clearly obvious that the these articles are different from the article Miss Earth." I also agree with Legacypac, that the minor awards winners were not notable to be included in the articles and therefore be deleted, but the major awards in the articles should be retained with acceptable source.-- Richie Campbell ( talk) 03:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep all and work to fix the problems. While there are problems with the articles, and perhaps with the editors who contribute to them, deleting them because we don't like the sort of editors who are attracted to them, or because we don't like the subject matter, would amount to censorship of the worst kind. These articles are clearly notable, there are clearly plenty of reliable sources, and are clearly of interest to editors and readers alike. Jacona ( talk) 13:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep all: to me, all the articles of Miss Earth editions are notable. Let's just fix the sources which are unreliable. There are some contributors of the pageant who do not know what are the sources that should be included and should not be included. I believe other major pageants experience the same kind of sources, too. -- Artchino ( talk) 00:53, 18 December 2015 (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.