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. Not enough consensus to delete, and the statement that virtually all sources are to Wikipedia is outright incorrect (at the time of this closure). The article could use a rewrite/trim, but that is not justification for wholesale deletion. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister International

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted 3 times previously. Article is unsourced and overtly promotional, not a notable pageant and a lack of depth of coverage to meet standards for notability. Flat Out (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When virtually all references are to Wikipedia an article is clearly overly promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references in the article are "to Wikipedia". Kraxler (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was speedied in 2007 and 2008 (ancient Wiki history) as promotional and copyvio, none of this seems to apply here anymore, only previous AfD ended in "no consensus". Pageant has been held for a ten years now, and the article is mostly a list of winners and other facts, not at all a WP:PROMO piece. Web searches turn up thousands of news stories and hundred thousands of google hits, mostly about the annual winners of the national pageants which select the contestants to the international final event. About the organization and its owner there are a few mentiuons, but look at the sourcing of Miss Universe, there are about 30 refs, two about on which TV channel the events are broadcast, and the rest about individual winners/pageants. Kraxler (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've revised the bare url citations to formatted citations to assist in evaluating the quality of the existing sources. Personally, I'm neutral on retention of the article, though I do think it is overly long and detailed for the degree of citation support provided. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing enough coverage from the Manila Bulletin of coverage of this pageant to believe GNG is met. See [1] for an overview. NEVENT does not apply, for obvious reasons, this is about ten or more years of pageants, not a single event. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:23, 25 July 2015 (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.