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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Universe countries[edit]

List of Miss Universe countries (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)

Nearly unsourced article that looks like fancruft and WP:OR The Banner talk 16:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not seeing anything here that couldn't be (or already is) duplicated in the country-specific articles. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – per WP:LISTPURP. With 6,010 page views the page has received in the last thirty days, a quite significant number, this is a functional navigational aid and valuable information source. The article is also very easily verifiable via simple news and book searches. See also WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy to be done with a click-robot. Do you have any comments content-wise? The Banner talk 09:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some cross checking confirms that the content is accurate, so it's not original research, and "fancruft" is not a valid rationale for deletion. The page has received 128,747 page views between 7/1/2015 to 5/24/2016, and sharply spiked shortly after Miss Universe 2015 that occurred on 20 December 2015, with 22,560 page views on one day alone, on 21 December 2015. Definitely qualifies for an article per WP:LISTPURP, and deletion serves no purpose other than to remove a valuable information source and navigational aid from the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have any arguments content-wise? The Banner talk 21:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per North America. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Content is largely verifiable, though the article certainly calls for additional sources and references. Also, this list provides information to readers not present in the Miss Universe article. It is not repetitive, and it passes WP:LISTPURP. --Dps04 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 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.