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. Consensus has tended towards a majority agreeing with the arguments set out by GRuban. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss and Mister Supranational

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I tagged this article CSD G4 as a recreation of a deleted article (see the many AFDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational (2nd nomination) but was challenged by the page creator GRuban that it was significantly different. But given the fact that the subject has come to AFD so many times, I'd like to get a consensus decision from AFD regulars on whether the article should be deleted or if this subject now warrants an article. I've seen quite a few beauty pageants come to AFD discussions so I think those participating here will be better judges of the standards of articles on that subject than I am. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is one of the notable major beauty contests of the year. This Article has more than 90 reliable reference from all over the world are covering the pageant. And it has been rated as C on the WikiProject Beauty Pageants Really meet WP:GNG. Bonutra (talk) 8:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Sorry if this is going to be long, but there are just so many reasons to keep the article, that I'm surprised that an experienced admin thought it could be speedy deleted.
- The AFD Liz refers to was in 2014. At the time, this was a 4 year old contest. Since, this has become a 12 year old contest, and has drawn much more Wikipedia:Notability. As you can see, as Bonutra writes, over 90 references, and most later than 2014. That should suffice.
- You'll notice it's now Miss and Mister Supranational. In 2014, it wasn't, that only began in 2016. The Miss half is still more notable, but that's a noticeable difference.
- When I wanted to create the article - from scratch, I wasn't aware of any past history - I noticed that it had been deleted before. I went to the deleting admin, RoySmith (talk · contribs), and asked for permission to recreate it. He gave it!
  - After I wrote it, I asked for him to review it, to check that it was now suitable. He did!
  - After it made Wikipedia:Did you know page leaders, as one of the most viewed DYK articles for its month(!), I mentioned this to him again, and he wrote that he was glad it worked out! (The relatively high views have continued, by the way. It actually gets as many or more views than our article on Miss America. Not that that's a direct indicator of notability - the references are that - but it does show our readers are interested.)
  - Hopefully this will ping him and he will be along to confirm.
- I pointed Liz to the article talk page where this is all discussed. That didn't matter?
- Do I have to go to each Wikipedia admin individually to get approval to recreate a deleted article? Surely getting the approval of the deleting admin is enough?
- There may be more, but I needed to start with this. Unless Liz wants to withdraw the nomination? --GRuban (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, I wouldn't categorize my prior interactions with this as saying it was "suitable". My userfication was routine; I'll userfy almost anything on request as long as it doesn't run afoul of WP:CV or WP:BLP. And when asked to review it, the most positive thing I said was that I didn't see any references, that raised any obvious red flags about not being WP:RS. That's hardly a glowing endorsement. In any case, it's all immaterial for this AfD. The goal of an AfD is to determine if a topic meets WP:N. About that, I offer no opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly had the impression you were convinced, sorry. --GRuban (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not withdraw this AFD. This subject is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational 2017. Without an updated AFD decision with a different outcome than the last one, any articles on this beauty contest will continue to be tagged for deletion by editors attuned to looking for recreated articles. Isn't it better that have a clear decision to Keep these articles rather than having to go through this song and dance every time a well-meaning editor tags these articles for speedy deletion? That is the whole purpose of this AFD...without an updated decision, these articles will continue to be tagged for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I looked at a few sources used for the article, one of the first being The Plain Dealer, which starts :"Odds are you haven't heard of the Miss Supranational pageant." Indeed I hadn't, but I think there are enough reliable sources available to demonstrate that these pageants pass WP:GNG. I'm not going to claim familiarity with the reliability of all the sources, but from my random selection, there is adequate coverage in national/regional press, and I see that only a couple of the sources are highlighted by User:Headbomb/unreliable (bearing in mind the caveats on that page). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - It looks to be an international competition with substantial coverage. I don't see any reason to get rid of it. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 04:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No wonder there are huge number of sources: pageants are a a lucrative business. The problem with these sources from all over the world is that they are routine PR pieces and announcements. To establish notability we have to have independent sources that cover the subject in detail. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're absolutely not PR pieces and announcements. With the rare exception of a couple of WP:ABOUTSELF, they're from independent newspapers all over the world, who are serving no one but their readers. If you think that all those unrelated sources from different countries are dependent on the Miss and Mister Supranational organization, you have a serious overestimate of its reach and power. And they're only routine in the sense that the contest comes every year. True, most are not tremendously indepth on the organization, just on individual contests, but that is the nature of a regular event, and this is an article about the event - the very series of contests the sources are writing about - not about the organization. Taken as a whole they cover the competition quite thoroughly in detail. WP:GNG does not require that indepth coverage be in a few sources, we can absolutely add them up. To quote a classic: All those are on one side. Maybe some of them are unimportant - I won't argue about that - but look at the number of them.[1]--GRuban (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get a lot of coverage in RS from all around the world without really doing anything significant, hosting an international competition is a pretty good way to do it. Papers love writing stories about locals succeeding in competitions. By the strictest reading this would therefore pass GNG, but I think this is the case where that's misleaading. Almost none of the sources are actually about the pageant as an event, or about the ogranization that hosts it. They're about the women who compete in it. Of the 94 sources (using numbering as of this revision), #s 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 47, 48, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, & 94 are about the candidate from the region the source is based in, or a candidate with ties to the region—mostly announcements of who'll be competing, announcements of victory, or press-release-style lists of winners with a focus on the candidate, with a few actual profiles of winners. (Sidenote, #3 doesn't actually mention Miss Supranational; not sure how it wound up in the article.)
That's not to say that the rest are RS coverage of the pageant itself either: Some are the same thing about neighboring countries; some are ones I couldn't translate and may well fit in that long list; some are ABOUTSELF; some are tangential. Really only the 53rd reference (a puff piece about the sponsor one year) and the 82nd, (about a change in franchisee in the Philippines) acknowledge the pageant as anything other than a ranking-generator. There is significant coverage of this pageant's existence, and of a lot of people affiliated with it, but I don't think there's significant coverage in keeping with the spirit of GNG. Delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I heard that "none of the sources are actually about the pageant, [t]hey're about the women who compete in it" argument, and I think if you look at it more closely, you'll see it doesn't hold. The sources are only writing about the women because they're competing in the pageant. Sure, the articles seem pretty in-depth about how Gretchen Gryffindor, the Miss Supranational candidate, is studying Anthropology, active in her local charity, and plays the tuba, but don't you agree that if Sally Slytherin had gotten the nomination, it would instead be about how Sally Slytherin grew up on a farm, rides the unicycle, and juggles for children's birthday parties? They're not about "Rowena Ravenclaw, already famed beauty, adds the Miss Supranational crown to her long list of achievements"; they're about "Helga Hufflepuff, whom we never heard of before she was nominated for Miss Supranational, is also a pretty interesting person". They're articles about "the current holder of the office", so to speak.
It's also strictly untrue that they're only local sources about the candidate:
- https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2020/04/28/2010401/crowned-time-corona-miss-supranational-ecuador-picked-online-pageant is an article from the Philippines, about the contestant from Ecuador. You may notice this is not a neighboring country either, they're rather far apart.
- https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment/fashion/article/miss-korea-jenny-kim-crowned-miss-supranational/137645 From India about the winner from Korea
- https://www.visitseychelles.org/global-travel-news/korean-beauty-jenny-kim-crowned-miss-supranational-2017/ From Seychelles about the winner from Korea. Only two oceans away!
- http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/bb-pilpinas-supranational-mutya-johanna-datul-crowned-miss-supranational-2013-in-minsk-62334/ From the US about the winner from the Philippines
- https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/mister-supranational/gabriel-correa-from-venezuela-wins-mister-supranational-2017/articleshow/61898631.cms From India about the winner from Venezuela
Sure, most are about the local candidate, but strangely enough it's easier to write about someone when you share their language and time zone. There are plenty that aren't about the local candidate. --GRuban (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledged that there are some exceptions. My point is that the idea of 94 citations supporting notability is illusory. The fact remains: Not a single cited RS discusses Miss Supranational as an organization, and few if any discuss the pageant as an event. "Local woman off to compete in international competition with a fancy name" is a good story regardless of whether the competition is notable. If the competition is notable, it shouldn't be hard to find RS that discuss its organizational structure, its finances, logistics of the individual pageants, etc. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 13:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per request. Organizational structure and logistics of the individual pageants.:
"Fil-Am modeling director is new Miss Supranational U.S. franchise owner" Philippine article about the US pageant

"Binibining Pilipinas loses Miss Supranational franchise to Miss World Philippines" CNN Philippines

"Miss Supranational is now under Miss World Philippines" Yahoo!

"Miss SA pageant to field candidate to Miss Supranational in addition to Miss World and Miss Universe" SA in this case means South Africa. --GRuban (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Strongly meets WP:GNG. I don't see any problem with notability in this topic bongchuyen111 (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems to meet GNG. Ah, the dreams of the younger days... - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GRuban.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP as per GRuban reliable citations. All of Indonesian representatives to the Miss Supranational pageant even supported by the governments and each year, Miss Supranational Indonesia appear on Government Website. Means Miss Supranational is a notable major beauty contests.--Lukewon (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - noting the following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Supranational_2017 which also includes the 2016 - 2021 pageants, and there is an AfD that includes Mister Supranational 2021 et al. I'm not seeing a valid reason to delete these articles - they pass GNG. Countries are selecting candidates to represent them. Why shouldn't WP include them? It's an international annual event. I'd rather see more science events, WikiCons, college debates and less sports, beauty pageants and Hollywood/Bollywood movies but...hey - the world loves to look at beautiful people. Atsme 💬 📧 16:10, 14 June 2021 (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.