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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Ecuador 2017[edit]

Miss World Ecuador 2017 (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)

Not independently notable of Miss World Ecuador & wp:promo. Created by an editor currently indef blocked for promotionalism: Special:Contributions/PageantsECU. Redirect has been removed by an IP. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteNeutral - All the references pertain to the winner - who is covered in the primary article. As per nomination, there isn't any notability for the 95% rest of the article and notability is not inherited. [A redirect seems rather pointless - I can't imagine many would specifically type in the full article. If people disagree I'm happy to go with redirect] Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: there are similar articles for the previous years and this article has a similar level of sourcing. Most if not all of the content appears to be sourced - I added a ref, found by following a link in one of those already there, which sources the contestants names, heights, ages. PamD 09:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at a couple of examples of the article's predecessors I would say they are actually significantly less notable (in terms of suitable sources, not "worthy topic") than this one, and WP:OTHER is in place. However with the added ref, most of the content is at least referenced in some fashion (though reading the (albeit translated) sources, some hardly come up as a calm, neutral consideration). In any case, I'm now neutral on this particular article - you have to (should be!) confident to vote delete, and I no longer think that is the case. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep a quick investigation suggests there's enough coverage, though I wouldn't object to a redirect to Miss World Ecuador. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom's comment - I'm still not seeing WP:SIGCOV for this stand-alone event. I don't see a reason to keep this page. Fails WP:CATALOG / WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a part of a series of articles on the annual events and there seems little reason to single this one out to the exclusion of the others. And this notion of having a series of "annual" articles is well accepted by the Wikipedia community -- it is used with plenty of other systems of organized competition. As just a very few examples, we have Ecuador at the 1968 Summer Olympics, Miss America 1967, and Ghana at the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games. These three articles have two things in common -- they have levels of sourcing that are lower than that found in the instant article, and they will never be deleted. Why not? Because the Wikipedia community accepts the notion of a series of "annual" articles on notable competitions. And aside from the general acceptance of these types of articles, their existence can be justified under WP:SPINOUT, which doesn't require a separate determination of notability. So long as the material in the article is verified, the article itself is acceptable. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can see there are already articles for the previous years of Miss World Ecuador, and I don't see the advantage of deleting or redirecting this one. However, I improved the sourcing of the article by adding additional info and citations with significant coverage of the event. This article now passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Additionally, it makes sense to separate each event by year, as there is too much information about each year to keep them in one giant ever-expanding article for Miss World Ecuador. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2018 (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.