Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. Globe (3rd nomination)

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 Mrs Globe only‎. Only Mrs Globe has been discussed in any way.

For the nominator. It's sources that win prizes not allegations or assessment of creator intentions. Please don't bulk nominate a BLP and a non-BLP. We tend approach them differently and it creates extra paperwork. Spartaz Humbug! 03:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Globe

Mrs. Globe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:NOT (clear promotion or advertising).

Third nomination because 1st time, the creator of the page argued the case and there was not much other interest in discussion so it was closed as no consensus, and 2nd time the nomination was my long rant so it was closed as procedural keep. At no point has there been a strong argument made for keeping this based on Wikipedia policy.

I am arguing that this was clearly created as promotion by Australianblackbelt, whose account has since been blocked because of WP:NOTHERE as this person attempted to make multiple pages for Mrs. Globe alone. When you look at the sources on the article, most are broken links, and many are not reliable sources, and some aren't even about the pageant at all (per the 1st nomination). Dubious, probable COI anecdotal claims about notability from the creator of the page (who has since been blocked for WP:NOTHERE) are not supported. I do not see a notable pageant, all I see is a pageant inappropriately using Wikipedia as a venue for promotion. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are both apparently just self-promotion, most notable thing about these 2 women is that they won this non-notable pageant and previously won a non-notable national title in the lead-up to this non-notable international pageant:

Alisa Krylova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Svetlana Kruk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Fixthetyp0 (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator seems to be editing for the sole purpose of getting these 3 articles deleted... Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Nowehere in this article is it clear that this is promotion, nor does an editor's conduct mean their articles are automatically reflective thereof. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I concur that any possible promotionalism in these articles is nowhere near the level that would get them speedy-deleted. Krylova's article is certainly very bad, but its the sort of bad that is pretty easy to fix and does not merit a TNT deletion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If editors would please see the ANI, I would appreciate that. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Fixthetyp0's_sockpuppet_allegations_over_Mrs._Globe) I was in no way targeting KatoKungLee. As stated in the ANI, I see this as a page created for promotional purposes (not self-promotional, as Canterbury Tail said, but still promotional) and I nominate Mrs. Globe for deletion because it is a non-notable pageant. I was not attempting to accuse KatoKungLee of anything but merely noticed that the other 2 articles are for women who have done nothing notable other than win this non-notable pageant. We could consider a deletion approach of leaving those 2 women's articles (if there is more to those women that makes them notable) while continuing with deletion of Mrs. Globe, if that is muddying the waters too much. Unfortunately some of this discussion has spilled over into the ANI but Canterbury Tail made some great points that I suggest people look at before deciding how to further approach this. Also, to be clear - I never recommended a "speedy" deletion. I recommended an AfD. So whether the promotionalism is worthy of speedy deletion is irrelevant as that is not the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is whether Mrs. Globe is notable, or if it exists just as marketing for a pageant and that may be due to AustralianBlackBelt having some kind of conflict of interest leading to being a promoter or somehow connected with promoting for pageants - per what Canterbury Tail said in the ANI. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - @Fixthetyp0 "but merely noticed that the other 2 articles are for women who have done nothing notable other than win this non-notable pageant". That's not what you said though. You said I am also nominating the following related pages because they are both apparently just self-promotion. We can further prove this because you said the same thing - here in July. I'd also like to know on what basis are you deeming Svetlana Kruk not notable, because you she won four different pageants.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed the second AFD and will not be closing this go-round but I will relist it with a comment. If this was an issue of promotion, then CSD G11 would have been appropriate. The nominator doesn't discuss notability much but that is usually the focus in AFD discussions that I don't see being considered here. Do the sources in these three articles establish notability that justifies having a standalone article? Should the bios be redirected to the competition's article? I'd like to see less discussion about contributors, blocked or not blocked, and more on the whether or not GNG is evident.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. From a quick review, there's only one source with SIGCOV of the subject in the article: [1], not great because it's so dependent on a pageant contestant's voice. That is, the bulk of this source is neither secondary nor independent. From my quick review, none of the others provide SIGCOV, and many are similarly not independent.
I haven't done any further research for notability, so I won't !vote, but the Mrs. Globe article as it stands doesn't demonstrate GNG. —siroχo 03:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, there are several articles about Canadian contestants or the Canadian qualifiers, [2], [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This sounds like an argument for creating a Mrs. Canada Globe page, not an argument for keeping the Mrs. Globe page. Sometimes the national competition has reasons why it draws more notability than the international competition. That being said, in this case, I really do not think a couple of one-off small, local community articles profiling a contestant for competing in a pageant makes either the national or international pageant notable. Any Jane Smith can go to her local newspaper and say she's competing in a pageant and the local newspaper will likely generously give her one article on it to support her, especially the nice reporters of Canada when they want to focus on little community stories. One-off support articles from the contestant's local town happens in almost all pageants. Doesn't make the pageant notable. Take, for example, Mrs. Continental Worldwide. It would be laughable for anyone to consider that a notable pageant worthy of a Wikipedia page at this point (and accordingly, no such page exists), but if you look it up, yes there are local community newspapers who write a single one-off story about the Mrs. Continental Worldwide contestants, like many newspaper stories that go "so and so beauty queens #129743 of the thousands of beauty queens in the world won or is competing in so and so beauty pageant #297 of hundreds of random beauty pageants out there". Fixthetyp0 (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to withdraw my nomination of Svetlana Kruk because of new information that came to light where KatoKungLee says she won 3 pageants. Given that the 3 pageants she won are not notable (the Mrs. Universe she won isn't even the one with a wikipedia page, it seems to be a copycat pageant with the same name that for whatever reason didn't garner the same notability, and it's very confusing to have someone else have a wikipedia page for being the winner of Mrs. Universe 2013 when the list of winners on the Mrs. Universe page does not include Svetlana Kruk), I still personally do not believe Svetlana Kruk is notable. However, clearly I misspoke when saying "self-promotion" and didn't pay enough attention to who made that article. Now I would like to withdraw the nomination of Svetlana Kruk given that I feel personally attacked by KatoKungLee and his buddy DarkSide830 both arguing on this AfD and also threatening me with sanctions on the ANI together. I really did not ask to invite this in my life. I don't personally think Svetlana Kruk is notable but maybe this is a conversation for another time if someone wants to nominate her article directly, separately. Right now I want the focus to be on Mrs. Globe's non-notability. I hope the personal accusations can stop and we can focus on the notability of Mrs. Globe. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In case it's relevant (Like Canterbury Tail's comments about possibly promotional), the ANI is now archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User_Fixthetyp0's_sockpuppet_allegations_over_Mrs._Globe Cheers, Fixthetyp0 (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2023 (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.