Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand Thailand

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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources covering it. Davewild (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Thailand[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no independent sourcing as required by WP:RS The Banner talk 19:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a major competition, selecting contestants to five internationnal beauty pageants. Article has already Lots of sources, I will add some more later. Kraxler (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice when you add independent sources conform WP:RS instead of related sources. The Banner talk 16:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notabilty under WP:GNG we need coverage in "reliable sources which are independent of the subject". The Bangkok Post and The Nation are major metropolitan newspapers that are reliable sources under the guideline, there can't be any doubt about it, or do you question that? Now, how would they be related to the Miss Grand Thailand pageant? See Wikipedia:Independent sources#Examples, and tell me which one is it, "Owner, employees, corporate website, sales brochure, competitor"? Kraxler (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an essay, not a guideline as WP:GNG or WP:RS The Banner talk 20:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another fancruft-article where the sources are forums, blogs, dead links and at best a passing mention in a source that at first sight seems reliable, but when checked has nothing to do with the subject of the article (the article in Bangkok Post that Kraxler mentions above is about a resort in Thailand, with only a passing mention of Miss Grand Thailand, and thus doesn't count at all when checking notability, and the article in The Nation is about that same resort and the girls who competed, with no in-depth coverage of Miss Grand Thailand, as required by WP:GNG, and thus doesn't count either...). Thomas.W ^talk 22:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CRUFT and WP:ITSCRUFT, the latter an "argument to avoid in deletion discussions". This article is a list of results and an overview of the pageant. Obviously most of the coverage refers to the particular annual pageants, and is written in Thai letters, difficult to search for. Besides, the nominator has nominated a large number of Miss-related articles for deletion (many of which have been closed already, and were kept) and I spent the whole last week to dig up sources for them. You, Thomas W., should know about WP:BEFORE, especially B2 and B6. more to come... Kraxler (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: This article is an improperly sourced attempt to create notability for a non-notable beauty pageant, a non-notability that is evident in your claim that you spent "the whole last week to dig up sources for them", obviously without finding any. Instead of taking all claims in all articles at face value, as you did in your keep !vote and have also done in other AfD-discussions where I've seen you !vote, and posting long lists of links to policies and guidelines, I suggest you actually read the policies and guidelines, and check the references in the articles, as we're supposed to do before !voting. And stop critising The Banner for nominating articles like this one for deletion, as you've done in multiple AfDs now, he's trying to clean up among the hundreds, if not thousands, of articles related to non-notable beauty pageants and equally non-notable beauty pageant participators that have been created, and are still being created, by indefinitely blocked user Mrdhimas and his multiple sock and meat puppets. I would also like to point out that WP:GNG doesn't require just "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as you claimed a couple of notches up in this discussion; for a stand-alone article, like this, it requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, and that significant coverage should be about the subject/topic of the article, i.e. the pageant, not the participants or the resort where the pageant is being held (as in the articles in Bangkok Post and The Nation). So there's not a single reliable source in this article (or in any other article related to Miss Grand International for that matter) that provides significant coverage of the article subject. Which is typical for all articles created by Mrdhimas and his associates in the beauty pageant industry. Thomas.W ^talk 08:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to repeat it again and again, I understood already that you WP:DONTLIKE beauty pageants. Kraxler (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: It has nothing to do with liking or not liking, it's all about treating everyone fairly and equally, no matter who they are or how large and efficient an organisation they have behind them. There are lots of very competent people and very interesting companies and organisations out there who can't get an article about themselves on Wikipedia, or who have their articles here deleted, because of the rules here, so I can't see why we should be more lax when it comes to beauty pageants and beauty pageant participants, just because the beauty pageant industry have a very large and efficient organisation that create and maintain articles about them on Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 18:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kraxler (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. I go by the rules no matter what the subject of an article is, and never say we should make an exception, and treat an article harsher or more lax, just because of other irrelevant stuff, which is what WP:OTHERSTUFF is about. As you would have known if you had read it. Thomas.W ^talk 19:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read also WP:WINNEROUTCOMES #1 which would apply here. Kraxler (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming irrelevant to the AfD, but I'm beginning to understand what you did in the 56% of the AfD-discussions you took part in where you only "discussed", but didn't !vote. EOD. Thomas.W ^talk 19:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When arguments about the issue get scarce, people start arguing ad hominem. As a sometime admin candidate you should know better. Kraxler (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but may I remind you that you started with getting personal and aggressive? You know a load of nice, expensive sounding links but up to now you have no real arguments nor proper sources conform {{WP:RS]] or convincing evidence that a pageant is notable. The Banner talk 20:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added more significant in-depth coverage. Kraxler (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not. There's no significant coverage of the subject/topic of the article, as required by WP:GNG, in any of the links you added to the article, just the same passing mentions in articles about other things as we've seen before. Not one of those articles, blogs and what-have-you has any in-depth coverage of Miss Grand Thailand. Your rewrite of most of the article also changed much of the focus of it, and made it be less about Miss Grand Thailand, and more about the owner of the pageant, but he's already got his own article (which is about as badly sourced as this one, in fact when I last checked there was only one single reference in that article that was to a reliable source about him, all the rest were either dead links or blogs...). I'm beginning to realise that you're desperately defending all articles about beauty pageants that have been nominated for deletion, but who do you think you're fooling with your repeated addition of links to essays/policies/guidelines and your !votes claiming that this or that pageant is "clearly notable", when all evidence clearly shows that it's not? Others here aren't new to this, we know how to evaluate sources, and we know the rules and regulations here far better than you appear to know them. Thomas.W ^talk 11:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE " Your rewrite of most of the article also changed much of the focus of it, and made it be less about Miss Grand Thailand, and more about the owner of the pageant," - The article mentions the founder/owner twice in four paragraphs. Most of the article is about the actual pageant and its three editions. Anybody can see that, why can't you?

The Nation is a major metropolitan newspaper, a reliable source independent of the subject, per WP:GNG, with a full-page article on the 2014 pageant. Anybody can see that, why can't you?

RE "we know how to evaluate sources" Do you include here The Banner who nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Globe International (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Suriname and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2015 at none of which a single delete vote was cast, and where he tried to lecture a former arb on sources? Kraxler (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Kraxler, that you once have been an arbitrator is not of any value here. Especially when not seeing the pattern of promotion. And getting personal only weakens your "arguments". The Banner talk 15:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The results of those AfDs speak for themselves. Nobody (that means nobody) saw the "pattern of promotion" there. Kraxler (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know we are discussing the AfD about Miss Grand Thailand, not any other AfD. Do you have any real arguments left? The Banner talk 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments are in the article, they are called "sources". Kraxler (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And there are no reliable secondary sources in the article that provide in-depth coverage of the subject of the article, as required by WP:GNG, only irrelevant links, just like you have nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion here. Thomas.W ^talk 17:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the closer of this discussion will check the sources in the article, and make up his own mind. Besides, there is this coverage in Thai Rath, the most widely read Thai newspaper, here, here, and here. Besides, there was a live broadcast of the pageant, in Thailand's Channel 7, and had millions of viewers. Kraxler (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do hope the closing admin takes at look at those links, because (translated with the help of translate.google.com) the first one does not look at all like independent coverage by newsmedia, but has the look and feel of a standard press release, complete with contact information at the bottom of the page, with tph-number, web-URL and Facebook address, while the second one is about a Thai woman who has won "Miss Intercontinental 2014 Continental", and thus has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Thomas.W ^talk 17:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Miss Grand Thailand pageants select contestants for five different international pageants, among them Miss Intercontinental, as can be seen in the article. Anybody can see that, why can't you? (I suggest next time you discuss something, you inform yourself about the subject before opining.) That makes this pageant so much the more notable, it was affiliated in 2014 with Miss Earth and selects contestants for the notable pageants Miss Grand International and Miss Tourism International. Kraxler (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, each article is judged on its own merits, and there simply is no in-depth coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of the subject that supports your notion that the subject of the article, Miss Grand Thailand, is notable (by Wikipedia's standards). And even if notability was inherited Miss Tourism International is a pageant of dubious notability, Miss Grand International has the same owner as the subject of the article, and Miss Earth has, according to news reports, severed all links with the entire Miss Grand-organisation, so there's nothing to inherit there. Thomas.W ^talk 18:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting the cart before the horse. I didn't say that Miss Grand Thailand inherits any notability from somewhere else. I say that there is a lot of coverage because the pageant is important, selecting contestants to that many international pageants. That's reflected in multiple news reports in independent sources, like the most widely read daily newspaper in Thailand. And that makes it notable. Kraxler (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, claiming that there are multiple reliable sources confirming their notability, in spite of you not having been able to provide a single such source here. None of the links you have provided has been a reliable secondary source providing in-depth coverage of the subject of the article, as required by WP:GNG, only links with at best a passing mention of the subject. You have, in fact, not even provided a reliable secondary source for the claim that the subject of the article select contestants for the "many international pageants" that you are repeatedly going on about. If I hadn't been well drilled in assuming good faith I would even had seen the links to the Thai newspaper that when checked proved to not say what you claimed they said as a deliberate attempt to mislead people here, so why are you so desperately defending Miss Grand? Thomas.W ^talk 15:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails ORG + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all the inboxes and nice formatting, their is nothing suggesting notability as shown in reliable, in-depth secondary sources. Neutrality^talk 23:24, 4 June 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.