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. J04n(talk page) 14:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World country rankings[edit]

Miss World country rankings (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)

One of many endless pages of intricate detail built out for the Miss World business. This unsourced list page has no encyclopedic value. Delete as WP:VANISPAM and on the same arguments made on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Earth country rankings by User:FeatherPluma namely:

"This material is technically unverifiable because its sourcing is unknown and the sourcing is unretrievable on attempting a reasonable search. Technically, unless an editorially reviewed journalist were to compile this in a proper WP:RS, and none has, only the organization itself could hope to generate or maintain a correct list that corresponds to its organizational rules and procedures, which can change (and actually have) over time. (For example, among many possible questions, if there were an available official tabulation by Miss Earth would dethroned awardees be counted or not?) As such, Wikipedia policy is for deletion here. Parenthetically, from a utilization viewpoint, this table has no encyclopedic merit whatsoever (I will keep this brief but I will expound in detail if asked). The sole purpose of this table is commercial promotion. The organization itself or a fan site could opt to host any definitive official data they wish to maintain for their commercial purposes."

Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the list is useful for people interested in the subject of Miss World. Article needs more verifications certainly but that is not a reasoning for deletion. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any issue with all unverified material being deleted? The WP:BURDEN is on the people who put these unsourced claims in. Legacypac (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 1: Not referenced and not capable of being referenced, based on attempt to seek proper sources. 2: It is impossible with any proper duty to verifiabilty to try to correct the extensive errors in this table and keep it correctly up to date in the absence of a certified error-free baseline. WP:CALC states that "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. That is not the case here.
  • (For the longer record, the mistakes include: See Russia: 2 plus 1 plus 5 is... 7? Hmmm. France: 1 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 14 is... 24. Oops, Ireland doesn't add up correctly either. Nor Spain. Dominican Republic is even further off regular old school math. But not as badly as Switzerland, where 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 24 is 8. Maybe someone snuck in 20 unreferenced Swiss semifinalists who never existed? Wales looks wrong too. And something's off with Hungary. Maybe these territories got their data swapped? Then we have another category of errors. Several like this, but for example, line 81 Ukraine has 4 semifinalists but edges out Vietnam on line 82 with 6. Nepal on line 110 is below an array of places with 1. Lines 111 and 112 look to be messed up, and Guatemala, US Virgin Islands, and Nicaragua all got stuck in wrong places. So would we just make a big crazy guess that the Swiss entry snuck in 20 extra semifinalists? Then we have an apparent third category of errors. Look at Switzerland again, with 1 each of 1st/3rd/4th/6th runner up on this table. Except that according to List of Miss World runners-up and finalists, Switzerland was 6th runner up in 1978 and 1985. Rhodesia & Nyasaland shows 2 on this table, but doesn't show at List of Miss World runners-up and finalists, at least not with the name Nyasaland or Central African Federation, or whatever, because this list expands to all semifinalists, using some source that is obscure enough not to be cited. Then we have a fourth error category: the definitions of placement have wobbled over time. And a fifth: nobody has ever endorsed this tabulation methodology for this list of existing and no-longer-existing nations and territories. We have UK, and also Scotland and England, and Wales and N. Ireland. And so on. And a sixth -- if you want, I'll point out several other mistakes, with columns rather than rows. Just ONE of these: if Bermuda and Grenada are 35th equal, then custom would have Colombia be 37, not 36. Etcetera.) FeatherPluma (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC) modest reformat FeatherPluma (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent large edit... by a indef banned sockmaster of beauty pageants User:Colombiabeauty Legacypac (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The equivalent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Earth_country_rankings now deleted. Legacypac (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research. No reliable source discusses this concept, nor are the numbers on the page cited anywhere. This belongs on some Miss World fansite blog, not an encyclopedia. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:43, 5 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.