Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Aura International

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. While the keep argument provided additional references, two of them are interviews with this year's winner, the third being about her win. It failed to address the other participants concerns, particularly Robert McClenon's assessment that such references fail to provide significant coverage of the pageant itself. plicit 10:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Aura International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable beauty pageant Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable beauty pageant. See assessment of references.
Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Instagram Not a reliable source No No No
2 CONAN Daily List of 2021 contestants No, a press release No No [Bri]
3 Manila Bulletin Story about a Filipina contestant NoYes CONo No

This page was created in both draft space and article space, probably in order to game the system. This prevents draftification, but it doesn't prevent deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question to @Robert McClenon: How is the Manila Bulletin source not independent? —hueman1 (talk contributions) 12:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:HueMan1 - Assessment changed; conclusion left unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 13 October 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.