Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Barbie Universe

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Barbie Universe

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

I find notability unclear: fewer than 100 Google hits in total (not sure how many of them can be considered to be giving substantial coverage), and no references in the article. For what it's worth, the article says the pageant was founded in 2011 but a photo carousel I came across purports to show shorts from the 2010 event, leading me to wonder whether they're two different events with the same name. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not seem to satisfy GNG, and upon my own search, has little to no worthwhile discussion by reliable sources. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My suggestion for the creator would be to find reliable information about "competitive dolling" source and put a section in the article Doll. If enough information builds up we can spin out Doll competitions which could contain this information. if the aritcle gets big enough we could spin out Miss Barbie Universe But as is I don't see the content to make MBU notable by itself and the Wikipedia landscape doesn't suggest that it is either. I think there is Encyclopedic content here just not a stand-alone article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personally this looks somewhat promotional, Anyway no evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 03:44, 31 March 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.