Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Tourism Queen International 2007

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. No third party sources. Sandstein 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism Queen International 2007[edit]

Weak delete The pageant might be somewhat notable, but I am unconvinced that this particular edition of the pageant is notable on its own. There are a lot of ghits but these seem to be a somewhat ambiguous collection of fansites and mirrors. Searching Google news for Miss Tourism Queen International 2007 comes up with only 4 hits, although the pageant was held recently. I'm not strongly in favour of deletion, but I am unsure whether it meets notability criteria so I thought I'd bring it here. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely worth it The pageant is definitely notable, and specificially this edition, particularly to the pageant world. Other articles don't nearly have as much notability and remain on this site. This edition contained, as noted on the page, the highest number of contestants out of ANY international beauty contest. Simply because the Google world does not have enough information on the pageant provides this page with more reason for being here as it informs people that it exists: Miss Tourism Queen International does not have a huge internet fan base, like Miss Universe or Miss World, but it still is quite noteworthy, and particularly the 2007 edition. One-hundred and eight contestants is quite a large amount of contestants and Miss Tourism Queen International 2007 even features the international beauty contest debut of numerous countries (such as Somalia and Niue) making it more than important. I may be partial to its non-deletion because I created it, but these were the beliefs I held when I created it. Bulldoggie101 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per above, seems just notable enough.--JForget 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contestants from 108 nations seems pretty notable to me too. Some people just hate beauty pageants, but they're no less worthy of inclusion than any other large scale event. Mandsford 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm certainly not one of the haters :P My point is simply that there are other non-notable large-scale international pageants around so sheer numbers doesn't, in my opinion, make this a notable event. Considering that there were so many competitors, don't you think there should have been more news coverage? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I meant to add one more thing.... Miss America's Outstanding Teen is a notable pageant. However, this year there has been less coverage of the event itself... thus, while I was originally going to write a Miss America's Outstanding Teen 2007 article, I can see that this particular instance is not notable enough to justify inclusion. Same reasoning applies to Tourism Queen Int'l. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having international participation isn't meaningful for notability unless the pageant gets some international notice, and there seem to be no third party references. This is the sort of event that would accumulate ghits if it were notable. DGG (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Still Look I know you guys are more into this Wiki thing than I am, but you're focusing much more on just one argument. It is a signifigant edition, and my argument is that even if third party sources are scarce -- on the internet -- it doesn't mean people don't know about it. It was a large press event as well as a contest and if necessary I will make that note. Bulldoggie101 05:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. is this article still up for deletion? Because someone - not me - deleted the Afd notice on the page. Bulldoggie101 05:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article on some minor, no-real-world-impact beauty competition is bad enough (though at least arguable), but an obsessively trivial subset on individual years? Not even CLOSE to encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 01:22, 13 August 2007 (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.