Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Tourism International (2nd nomination)

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 No consensus. After being relisted twice, and multiple references mentioned during the discussion, no consensus to delete nor keep has been reached. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International

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

An advertorially toned articles on an event that lacks coverage that discuss the topic directly and in detail. A 2014 AfD closed as "keep" due to low participation and some sources being presented.

I reviewed the sources at the AfD and in the article, and I'm not convinced that they meet WP:CORPDEPTH, for example, one being titled "Miss Tourism International to Promote Malaysia" (which speaks of the promotional intent). Two+ years on, it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only the Straits Times offers any sort of prospect of notability. The other two refs are internal to the Pageant business. The Straits Times report dates from 2002 and simply reports the upcoming pageant. Agree with nom, very far from WP:CORPDEPTH. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Below are some sources. More sources in addition to these examples are available. Since notability assessments thus far appear to be only based upon sources in the article and a previous AfD discussion, see WP:NEXIST regarding this matter. Regarding the article itself, it does not have a particularly promotional tone, and it is formatted in the manner of many pageant articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I consider it appropriate to have a single article like this--but of course not articles on the individual years. I've removed a section that was promotional for the 2002 event DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and improve the main article. Smerge what's useful from the others. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the coverage offered above is routine, and confirms that the pageant exists. However, this is not true secondary coverage -- there's no transformative analysis, just routine beauty pageant blotter, as in: "icity visit organised as part of pageants efforts to promote tourism"; Filipina tops New Year's Eve beauty tilt in Malaysia; etc. Such information can easily found on the org's web site. With a few exceptions, the winners are non notable so this article fails as a list as well. Fancruft / listcruft / statistics -- I don't see anything encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another pagent business trying to make money. Nothing notable beyond press release generated coverage. Fails CorpDepth guidelines for me. Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2017 (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.