Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Venezuela World

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. The sources added to the article are too shallow and/or not independent secondary reliable sources. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Venezuela World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unreferenced article - no evidence of notability Fails WP:GNG. Flat Out (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - the pageant is an offshoot of Miss Venezuela and there are few sources for this offshoot reportedly held 6 times.
Note also that the History section remains entirely unsourced until an event held in June 2015. Also noted is that the Titleholder section does not match the sources or the History. Also Fails WP:NEVENT Flat Out (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -it is a noted beauty pageant in a country were beauty pageants are extremely popular. Does not fail WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment where are the sources then? LibStar (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those can be added. But AfD is not and will never be a clean-up service. If that was an issue then it should be handled at the artidcles talk page. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. nice try but the onus on keep voters is to demonstrate coverage if lacking in current article. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It probably needs improvement and references, but the general article fits Wiki criteria--Lucas559 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lucas559 which criteria does it meet? Flat Out (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non notable pageant fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I note none of the keep voters actually supplied sources which is a tell tale sign of lack of coverage. fails WP:GNG, could not find significant indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the delete voters ignore the fact that it is a major beauty pageant in a beauty pageant crazed country. In fact the article does not fail WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have supplied coverage. And Libstar is well aware of the fact that a simple Google search comes up with plenty of sources. So the significant indepth coverage is there.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - three of these sources did not mention the subject at all, and the remaining sources only support a single event held in 2015.Flat Out (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Then you do not read the sources apparently. And, do not remove an AfD tag from the article in question until the AfD is over. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did read the sources, and I removed those that didn't mention the subject. Further, it was Jallej, a likely sock, that removed the AFD template. Flat Out (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why did you not supply sources 6 days ago when I asked you? LibStar (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why do you enjoy arguing..? just wonder.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

answer the question please. LibStar (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Even with the 'added sourcing' this is a WP:FAILN. Falls into other stuff. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, let's examine some of the current 4 sources. this and this are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 9 July 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.