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. Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Supranational 2014[edit]

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

Offshoot reliant on the recently AfD'd main page Miss Supranational. Although there are lots of sources for this upcoming event they are almost entirely (if not all) unreliable and primary sources - LOTS of Facebook sourcing. The main pageant has been deemed insufficently notable so why should we have an article for this upcoming event? Mabalu (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Mabalu (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before we take this AfD any further, we need to post a question at WP:RS/N first in order to establish whether http://www.globalbeauties.com used on a grand scale in here can be considered reliable. The paegant seems to be very well established out in the real world, at a glance. Poeticbent talk 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the page about the main pageant failed notability at AFD and has been deleted - so I am not sure there is any case for retaining the individual shows themselves too. Many of them appear to have been created by affiliates of the pageant rather than valid third parties. This article is basically one of a number of roots for which their tree has just been cut down so am not really seeing a compelling reason to retain it. Mabalu (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact - I just had a look for Miss Supranational generally. Zero Google Books hits beyond the inevitable Wikipedia rehashes. On Highbeam. 43 articles, the VAST majority of which are from the Manila Bulletin and even there, very minimal mentions or mentions of a former contestant or winner being seen at the opening of an envelope. You'd think that it might have a FEW more articles if it was really so well established. It simply gets less and less notable the more I look for info on it. I mean, it's apparently going on right NOW - recently enough that it's getting hits (an epic earth-shattering 17 hits) on Google News - and those hits are barely even significant coverage. I bet Miss World doesn't get 17 hits on Google News when it's ongoing. Quick News search for Miss World pageant (to exclude stories like "Footballer will miss World cup match") and wow - 11,000 current Google News hits. From this all I can conclude is that Miss Supranational is some tacky little thing with delusions of notability. Mabalu (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. Did not meet the general notability guideline--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. The article's reliable references are only passing mentions. Independent searching failed to find significant coverage for the pageant or its 2014 show. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2014 (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.