Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Polo International

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. Nominated by a sock, remaining !votes are either withdrawn or indicate Keep. (non-admin closure) HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Polo International

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. WP:NGRS says that Vanguard news is a reliable source. The promotional tone of the Wikipedia article is up for dispute, but the eleven sources appear to be generally reliable. It looks as though it does not fail GNG. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Delete per below. CollectiveSolidarity (talk). Remove !vote. I’m not going to encourage further Sockpuppetry. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This passes WP:GNG, could you explain why you think it doesn't pass GNG? I did a quick google news search and was able to find a few articles. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with DownAndUp that NCORP, not the GNG, is the governing notability guideline here. Ovinus (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did a re-review, and think you might be right on this one. I’m disappointed that DownAndUp had to look at another rationale after he realized his original deletion methodology was wrong, but the sources I researched had merely trivial/promotional details about the company. Even if the sources are reliable, I don’t think the pageant is expressly notable. Fails WP:NCORP as too promotional and trivial. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more information and sources to the articles. This appears to be part of the pageant circuit where they go to multiple events a year. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strike !vote, shouldn't reward socking, whatever their aims HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Delete This is a commercial organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. None of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability including the newly added sources. For example, this from World Polo News is a "detailed interview" with the 2019 winner - since it has no "Independent Content" this fails WP:ORGIND. This Day Live is based entirely on an announcement and quotations with no "Independent Content", also fails WP:ORGIND. The IDN Times provides a profile of the 2019 winner but does not contain any significant in-depth info on the topic company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This from Vanguard is a report on the 2019 event held in Dubai but again does not contain sufficient in-depth information on the topic company although it has lots of detail on the 2019 event, also fails CORPDEPTH. This from Statepress reports on a Charity Fundraising Gala Night, also fails CORPDEPTH. Finally, this from Philstar is a profile of one of the contestants, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this and adding that the nominator of this and other beauty pageant AFDs was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominated by a confirmed sock. _-✍NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 02:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith nom by sock of banned editor. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was NOT a bad faith nom. The arguments for deleting it are legitimate. Every poorly made article out there doesn't deserve a pass just because a banned editor nominated it for deletion. The article's merits deserve to be discussed BASED ON THE ARTICLE'S MERITS. There are legitimate delete votes above, based on legitimate reasons. The ad hominem fallacy ("it was nominated for deletion by a sock so it must automatically be kept") is poor reasoning when you should be focusing on THE MERITS OF THE ARTICLE, not on WHO NOMINATED IT. This is not a "Users To Be Undermined" discussion forum. It is an "Articles for Deletion" discussion forum. Discuss the article, not the nominator. StopBanningMeAlready (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2022 (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.