Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss BC

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) The creeper2007^Talk! 18:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss BC[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)

Despite the plethora of sources provided, none of them are substantial and meaningful coverage of this non-notable pageant. See also this prior AFD Praxidicae (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because someone previously made an article on this topic that had an AFD 4 years ago, that doesn't automatically mean my article should be deleted too. I can't seem to see what the other one looked like - I don't know where to look for that information. Can you somehow link to the last version of the deleted one or is it gone for good? I would like to see what the issues were. According to the AFD, it said it was a word-for-word copyright violation, which mine would not be as I started from scratch and wrote things in my own words, so referencing the AFD from 2016 is null in that regard. As for how it meets notability guidelines, I disagree, because there are dozens of sources here to indicate that this topic has been reported on repeatedly. Initially it was criticized for not enough good sources, I added 20+ sources per criticism and merged Darren Storsley and Ron Wear into it, now it's criticized for WP:REFBOMB. So pray tell, what would it take to make this topic notable? Pretty much all the sources have one of the Courage Productions pageants as the main subject of the article, or one of the titleholders as the main subject of the article, so I don't see how that is not "substantial and meaningful" coverage. The vast majority of the sources are also articles from reputable news outlets, whether those are smaller ones like Langley Times or bigger ones like Vancouver Sun/The Province. --Wiki2008time (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you don't like it having the "Miss BC" title, I just renamed it recently but it can be renamed back to "Courage Productions" with "Miss BC" just redirecting to it. It's more about the company that manages a big pageant with multiple titles than about the "Miss BC" title alone. --Wiki2008time (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As well, you argued it was promotional when you suggested it for a "speedy delete" and I removed the part that I thought was promotional. The admin who removed the speedy delete agreed it was not entirely promotional. If it just sounds too promotional, that can easily be fixed if someone experienced can take a look at what is problematic. Personally, I don't think any of it sounds promotional to me, so I think someone more experienced should help. Unless it's fine now re: "advertisement" concerns. --Wiki2008time (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References don't demonstrate notability. I hear Wiki2008time's concern that the Afd from years ago doesn't mean an automatic Afd but this article as stands doesn't demonstrate notability. Needs more WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS which I'm just not seeing. Jackreed86 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non notable paegant with next to no coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on coverage in reliable sources: How are these not reliable sources? The Record? The Now? The Langley Times? North Shore News? Langley Advance? Surrey Now? Abbotsford News? Peace Arch News? Columbia Valley Pioneer? Indo-Canadian Voice? Vancouver Sun? BC Local News? Prince George Citizen? The Province? Yahoo Trending? Huffington Post BC? CTV Vancouver? If you're from BC, you'll know these are all reputable news outlets - just google some of them. If you just skimmed the sources, you may have had selective attention and just noticed some of the more questionable sources; if someone wants to remove those to keep the article, that's fair game, I just think slightly questionable sources do provide some useful biographical info. --Wiki2008time (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 7 more sources from the Shalom Reimer page, in anticipation of that one possibly getting recommended for a merge given the AfD. Additional sources besides the ones mentioned above include 604 Now, Light Magazine, and Saanich News. Once again, I argue that there are plenty of good sources that cover this topic in one way or another, meeting WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS. --Wiki2008time (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding every source on the internet is not helpful. You need to provide in depth coverage instead of WP:REFBOMBing the article, making it impossible for anyone to discern if there is actual sigcov. Praxidicae (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 4 more sources from the Gloren Guelos page, again in anticipation of a merger given the AfD. Additional sources besides the ones mentioned above include Cloverdale Reporter, Chilliwack Progress, and United Way Lower Mainland. Maybe the United Way one isn't a great source, but the other 2 are additional examples of reputable news outlets within British Columbia that have reported on Miss BC. I counted around 20 good sources reporting on Miss BC. The nominator complains WP:REFBOMB but then other people say WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS. So are there not enough good sources or too many? The arguments seem prejudiced without actually looking into the sources in depth. I am not making it "impossible" to discern if there's actual sigcov, I am doing my best to add in many good articles, and everyone is taking one quick look at the sources and shouting "REFBOMB" or "not WP:RS" without actually looking into any of them. --Wiki2008time (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

@Wiki2008time, having gone through your talk page it seems as though almost all your articles are being nominated for deletion by various editors. Now my advice is; since you are a new editor, it is best you take things slow & first & foremost begin to study our policies & guidelines pertaining to notability. That would save you a whole lot of heartache. I don’t think anyone is biting you it’s just a matter of competency or the lack of it on your part. I’m really sorry colleague if that sounds a tad bit harsh. But I’d leave a couple of relevant links to basic policies that you’d need to study in your talk page. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not my other articles will be deleted is irrelevant to this discussion. This particular article has many more sources than other articles I have worked on, which I have since tried to merge into this article if they had no additional notability outside the pageant. I suggest people look at the sources from this article in depth before deciding that this is WP:REFBOMB and that the coverage is not WP:SIGCOV, because it seems to me to be premature and attacking a newbie just because I might be "trying too hard" to add in sources. Unless you look at the 20 good sources that I mentioned and determine that they don't provide enough coverage on this topic to merit keeping the article, deletion is premature. If you want to delete some of the other sources, like links from the MissBC/MissUniverse/MissWorld/YouTube/Instagram/etc websites, that may make sense despite losing some potentially useful extra information (e.g. for a couple pageant years, I could only find the names of *all* winners on the televised copy of the pageant, which I could only find on YouTube - but some articles still mention some of the winners even if not listing all of them, so YouTube removals would only lead to a few winner names not being supported), but deletion of the entire article seems premature. --Wiki2008time (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just added 4 more sources from The Nothern View, Aldergrove Star, Coast Reporter, and another from Columbia Valley Pioneer. All BC newspapers. Over 20 reputable local/provincial/sometimes national newspapers have been cited in this article, sometimes more than once if the particular source wrote more than one article on Miss BC. --Wiki2008time (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be substantial and ongoing coverage of this pageant in multiple reliable sources. I understand why individual contestants and winners are normally deleted and/or merge/redirected, with issues of limited coverage or "1event". I can also understand why we wouldn't give every title its own article. But, it makes sense to have an article on the overall organization. While some poor quality sources are used, that can easily be fixed. This is a straightforward case of meeting WP:GNG. I don't think any pageant gets an "auto keep". Merely being a provincial pageant doesn't mean anything, since anybody can make one of those. But, the coverage given, as warranted an article. Quite easily. --Rob (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same argument as Rob. I think the article needs a lot of work and is currently suffering from a bit of WP:REFBOMB, but only because the user who created the article is new and really wants to demonstrate SigCov. The sources do exist. GNG is met. I think it's an easy keep. Samsmachado (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thank you, yes - I'm just "trying too hard" to demonstrate sigcov, I'm not purposefully doing WP:REFBOMB to be deceptive. --Wiki2008time (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep I literally just came onto wikipedia to find information about this pageant and APPARENTLY it might get deleted?? That's ridiculous. A day later and I would have missed out. I've heard of many of the winners in the news multiple times. This pageant is a big deal in BC and we need an article for it. Please keep it. Fix it or whatever you need to do, just don't do something as ridiculous as delete it. Also if someone could update what's going on with the 2020 pageant in light of the pandemic, that would be great, thanks. --Danimeers (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Danimeers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please note that all of the comments by Wiki2008time have been struck through as they have been blocked for engaging in sockpuppetry. Their sockpuppet, Xannir (also now blocked), has involved themselves with editing of the Miss BC article. Nick (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD disrupted by sockpuppetry, more discussion would be useful to establish consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nick (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I originally closed this unaware of the sock-puppetry situation. I'll give my reasoning for that here, and let somebody else decide, then: many of the arguments very obviously fall into WP:AADD (eg. "This pageant is a big deal in BC..." which is WP:PLEASEDONT). What remains are the two conflicting statements "next to no coverage in reliable sources" and "there seems to be substantial and ongoing coverage of this pageant in multiple reliable sources". Only one of these two can be true. A look at the references cited, despite the issues of cite-bombing (WP:DINC which I pointed out at the time), seems to render the delete argument invalid ("references don't demonstrate notability" was also particularly puzzling, there's AFAIK no requirement that references demonstrate that a subject is "notable" or otherwise "extraordinary", only that they cover said subject to an appreciable depth), since a lot of those references are indeed coverage about the pageant (or it's winners...) in reliable independent sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great perhaps you can point out which of the 70 sources thrown in there feature independent and in-depth coverage of this pageant? Praxidicae (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This (from the Huffington Post) is in-depth coverage about a winner; This from the Vancouver Sun is also that. This (The Now)... Obviously, what these sources demonstrate is that there is persistent coverage of the yearly winners of the competition; coverage which is apparently due only to them winning the competition (and a lot of those BLPs get merged there because of WP:BLP1E). Also, the fact that the competition leads directly to the national-level competition (whose article is in a sorry state) might be a factor in that too, and the fact that it keeps getting mentioned in news which don't always just focus on the winner clearly shows that this topic has generated WP:SUSTAINED coverage and passes WP:GNG.

Some of the sources also have more in-depth coverage on the pageant itself, eg. this (more than half the article) or this (also a few paragraphs). I might be bothered to look for more in those (like the above) already cited in the article, but clearly I have demonstrated here that there are multiple (at least two for the competition, many others for the winners) independent reliable sources which discuss this topic or sub-topic of it to a significant depth; therefore easy keep. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by RandomCanadian. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The keep arguments are stronger than the delete arguments. At first glance, any article with WP:REFBOMB could be hastily dismissed in one sentence without examining sources. In contrast, the keep arguments make several good points. Yes the article needs cleanup, but RandomCanadian is right to reference WP:DINC. Easy keep. --Micky (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, shouldn't relisting for sockpuppetry happen if the sockpuppet disrupted the discussion itself? AFAICS, this AfD was closed as keep before the sockpuppet's first edit on the article itself. That bore no influence on the AfD, so I question the striking through and the relist. Changing my !vote to speedy keep. --Micky (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Micericky: Well obviously it's User:Nick who undid the original close and struck the comments - I'm certainly not going to overrule an admin on it (not in this situation, especially), but WP:SOCKSTRIKE doesn't seem to apply here, as you point out, and in any case the sock hasn't commented here anyway so it's not like there's a duplicate vote. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes fair enough, but good points - we're confused about the striking, @Nick:? --Micky (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)~~ Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE is an essay, not a policy, however it suggests cleaning up after socks in the least disruptive way possible. The sensible approach here was to strike the comments because of the overlap in editing undertaken by Wiki2008time and their sockpuppet account, such as editing the Miss BC article and using their sock to close a Redirect for Deletion discussion concerning the Miss BC article. I did consider other options, such as closing the AfD and undertaking a procedural new AfD, but striking the comments and re-listing the AfD was the least disruptive and most sensible option. You can still see the comments Wiki2008time left, you're made aware of the sockpuppetry and if you wish to change, modify or strike your own comments, you're able to do that. Nick (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Micericky, signing himself as Micky, is a sock of user:Wiki2008time. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Jackreed86 is a sock of user:Vipulsshah. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for delete and new article There is been 10 edits on it, outwith the sock, of which about 8 are rollbacks, bots, removing a link and category updates and so on, leaving 2 genuine edits to the article itself. The version history is stonkingly bad. I think it should be WP:TNT'd, and restarted as a nice clean article, by somebody else. I think it should go. Does anybody a view on that? scope_creep^Talk 10:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources are comprehensively bad, outwith standard and will need to removed anyway. Why not go the whole hog. scope_creep^Talk 10:50, 26 June 2020 (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.