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. There is clearly no consensus that this list should be deleted, or that it fails WP:LISTN. Therefore, the list is retained. Any discussion about renaming the list, or making other improvements, can be made at the list's talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino beauty pageant winners[edit]

List of Filipino beauty pageant winners (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)

A crazy long list of people who generally don't qualify for their own article but competed in various minor pageants. Zero sources inspires zero confidence in this random collection of information. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. We should not be building list of people who don't qualify for their own article but were involved in events that fail WP:EVENT. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LISTPURP as index of articles and as complement to Category:Filipino beauty pageant winners, which shows there are clearly enough who qualify for their own article. Whether it should be narrowed down to only those who merit articles is a matter for ordinary editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non notable event, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Davey2010: This isn't about an event. Did you accidentally comment in the wrong AFD? postdlf (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Damnit that'll teach me for pasting the same rationale! ..., I'll try again!.... - Had the list contained notable people then great keep it but I'd say a good 90% of the article is filled with non notables and pointless images which aren't really needed in an article, I still can't find anything notability wise so imho fails GNG still. –Davey2010^Talk 16:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this basically a WP:TNT argument? Because there are over a 100 viable entries for this list, as seen at Category:Filipino beauty pageant winners. The image gallery also consists entirely of people with articles, and so is arguably more useful than the table at present, and it would be easy to convert that into a table after deleting the remainder...if that's what editors want to do, a discussion about content that should be had on the talk page. And images certainly serve a valuable function in list articles, as in List of Presidents of the United States. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When did pageant winners not notable enough for an article become comparable to Presidents of the United States? Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric that deliberately ignores the point of a comparison never accomplishes anything here. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Only 8 out of 54 of the A names have there own article. Most of the pageants listed don't have an article either. Although the title of the article says the names are winners, that does not seem to be the case as many are listed as semi-finalists etc. If restricted to only names or events with an article, 75%+ of this needs to be trimmed. As it sits it is unreferenced WP:NAMECHECKING Existing categories should cover the topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already commented on your content issues above; please also see WP:NOTCLEANUP and policy at WP:ATD. Not to mention WP:NOTDUP... And your approval of categories in this context also underlines that it's not the concept of the list you have a problem with, but rather its current state and execution. We do not delete articles based on nothing more than issues with the version "as it sits". postdlf (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, the % of the content that needs to be removed meets WP:TNT. You may disagree I suppose. Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming it down to this took just a couple minutes, obviously something that can be expanded from the category and the table refined from the quick version I threw up. And it's also quite possible that editors may support keeping the table that I removed, after discussion, and with the page not being deleted it remains in the history to be restored, or just to be mined for notable entries or other information. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Filipino beauty pageant winners. Also qualifies per WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigational aid and valuable information source. Sources are easily found and can be added to the article, some of which I have performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If More Citations Added I have no concerns about notability of this list, given the prominance of beauty pageantry and the evidence that several of the members of this list have passed GNG on their own, but any list like this needs in-line citations for EVERY ENTRY to demonstrate their appropriate membership of the list itself (e.g. this random list. The primary issue with this list, that absolutely needs to be addressed, is Verifiability. If this isn't done and this comes back to AfD, I know I'd lean strongly toward deletion.
• Keep and rename but trim down the list. Remove those who solely won on pageants that doesn't have an article such as Miss Chinatown Manila. "Placement" is also ambiguous but a closer analysis points that these are the international editions of the local pageants listed on the left. Also I proposed changing the title to "List of Filipino winners at international beauty pageants" because technically most contestants of international beauty pageants are winners of the competition's national counterpart.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Settling on inclusion criteria is an activity for talk page discussion. I will note though that such a list is basically an occupation by nationality classification, and so [nationality] [occupation/achievement] is the standard form. The corresponding category is also titled Category:Filipino beauty pageant winners. At a minimum, anyone who is 1) notable, 2) Filipino, and 3) won a beauty pageant should be included on this list just as in the category. postdlf (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As the title sits a 6 year old Filipino origin winning Little Miss Sunshine Springfield USA qualifies for this never ending list. If someone wants to build an article with a more restrictive title go ahead, but this ain't it. Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2016 (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.