Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand Nepal

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. As noted WikiProjects cannot create their own notability guidelines, never mind that such a guideline for beauty pageants and their organizations does not seem to exist yet. The article does not appear to meet any of the existing notability guidelines for organizations, competitions and general topics, judging from the discussion. The article may be restored if foreign language sources can be found which support notability, which does not seem to be the case here yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Nepal[edit]

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

Not notable. Deleted at AfD previously, and the years since don't seem to have resulted in increased significant coverage. Fram (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Projects in general don't decide their own notability guidelines, a global consensus for these is needed. WP:N is more than capable of handling this, no subject-specific guideline can be looser than this anyway. I see no consensus emerging for such a guideline at that discussion, and furthermore that discussion is about a guideline for contestants, not for organisations, so it wouldn't apply anyway. Fram (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject-specific guidelines serve the important role of fostering uniform treatment of the many articles that fall within the scope of each guideline. This is especially important given the generally low level of participation at AfD discussions, as well as the differing standards used by individual administrators when assessing consensus -- both of which tend to create disparate and oft-times unpredictable results for similar articles. As for your observation about the current project-level discussion, you are quite correct that the discussion is currently focused on state-level contestants. But this discussion is simply the initial topic in a broader discussion that also will address international pageants.

But there are other reasons to keep this article. The subject organization is a "feeder" for the Miss Grand International pageant. As such, the instant article is part of a series of articles that collectively provide comprehensive coverage of that international pageant. Providing comprehensive coverage of a topic via a series of stand-alone articles is a well-established practice here on Wikipedia. Although the instant article would certainly look better if it had additional sourcing, that fact in itself is not sufficient to justify its deletion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Notability is not inherited, qualifications are not notable just because the final competition or pageant may be notable. What you describe is not "a well-established practive at Wikipedia" but an end-run around notability. What you need is reliable sources showing notability for this event, nothing more, nothing less. Fram (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's not nonsense. Nor is it a question of inheriting notability. It's a question of using stand-alone articles as a reasonable means of providing comprehensive coverage of a topic. This is a long- and widely-accepted practice, as evidenced by articles such as Acalyptris vittatus, Hezekiah Allen, Edward Newell (cyclist) or 3 Andromedae. Despite the wide range of topics from which they are drawn, these permanent stubs share something in common -- they will never be deleted because each of them is part of a series of articles that collectively provide comprehensive coverage of a broader topic.

But there's something else to consider, as well. Wikipedia already provides coverage for the winners of national-level feeders to Miss Grand International whenever the delegates are being chosen from the same pageant from which delegates to other international pageants are chosen. One example is that of the delegates from India, who receive coverage in a list within the article on Femina Miss India. If the delegates from Nepal had been chosen by the Miss Nepal franchise, they would appear in a list in that article. But they're not -- they are chosen by a different franchise. So, a stand-alone article is appropriate. Indeed, to grant coverage to delegates from India, but deny that coverage to Nepalese delegates based on the identity of the franchising organization, strikes me as a dubious reason for deleting the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per Wikipedia's standards, neither per the general notability guidelines, nor per the specific guidelines for events. And, as Fram says, projects don't get to set their own standards for notability. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This competition does not meet the notability requirements for competitions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up. Two sources have been added to the article. Interestingly, one of them is an article from the Indian Times, thus showing that the event has received press coverage from a source in a different country. I also note that much of the daily press in Nepal is published in the Nepali language; someone who is fluent in that language would be able to do a more-thorough search. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the sources added provide trivial coverage. I cannot find sufficient RS on "Miss Grand International" to understand its significance so the feeder pageant does not appear to be notable in turn. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2016 (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.