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 Nominated by a sock, remaining !votes are either withdrawn or indicate Keep. HighKing++ 15:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)]
Miss Polo International
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Miss Polo International (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
]- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly Talk to my owner:Online 01:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)]
*Keep. talk) 13:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)]
- 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)]
- 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)
- Rationale from 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)]
- Comment I agree with DownAndUp that NCORP, not the GNG, is the governing notability guideline here. Ovinus (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- 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 talk) 20:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)]
- 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
- 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)
- Strike !vote, shouldn't reward socking, whatever their aims HighKing++ 13:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)]
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)
- Comment: Nominated by a confirmed sock. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 02:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith nom by sock of banned editor. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
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.talk) 13:21, 18 August 2022 (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.