Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Diva - 2014

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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Diva - 2014[edit]

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

Advertising and fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources The Banner talk 11:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 19:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per notability as there is a lack of reliable sources internationally or nationally concerning title notability (with "significant coverage"). The entire article is filled with unsourced content. If we can't verify content per above then how do we know when there is no original research? Lacking references means it is deemed to be OR and fails Wikipedia core content policies. A failure to cite sources means any corrections will be impossible as well as determining if there is a neutral point of view.

What will likely garner more attention, and create less enthusiasm for these "beauty" editors, is when they stop the bikini line-up in for Miss World in 2015. Aside from what is listed above the article is written horribly and lacks severely in proper sentence structure. The lead introduces the word "CODS". Is that "Coloma Outdoor Discovery School" or "Centre of Obesity and Digestive Surgeries"? The article would need a rewrite because of poor grammar and weasel words ("The glamorous" and "beautiful contestants") so considering all the above it needs to be deleted. Otr500 (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- "glamorous" and "beautiful" are not weasel words in this context: they are technical terms for the contestants, who are not ugly, right? -M.Altenmann >t 20:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm 01:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst ! 19:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The article contains nothing ~~harmful~~ excessively promotional; a mere stats for the annual event, Miss Diva, which is quite notable in itself. One may suggest to merge it into Miss Diva, but his would be stupid. -M.Altenmann >t 20:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Miss Diva. Well, it seems to be pretty notable and can be merged as @Altenmann: suggested. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:54, 3 January 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.