Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss New York Chinese Pageant

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss New York Chinese Pageant[edit]

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

Fails WP:N; only source is its own website. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite my initial reactions that it sounded highly deletable due to lack of independent sources, I found a few sources including this article from the New York Times solely about this pageant. Quite a few articles on Meniscuszine.com too. I noticed a couple of references to it being simultaneously broadcast in China at the same time as it is on. An article from a Asian Fusion magazine here. There are probably quite a number of additional sources in Chinese language media too. Although I am indifferent to beauty pageants, I think this one might be a bit more notable than it initially seems, hence my leaning keep vote. It actually seems to be legitimate and certainly doesn't sound anywhere near as dubious/shady as some of the other pageants that have come up for AFD. Mabalu (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per NYT article, Asian Fusion article and articles at [1]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be cited for the article to meet WP:GNG, remember. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jéské Couriano: Actually, this is not true, per WP:NRVE, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but as it is the article is essentially unsourced, as the only source there (at time of AfD) was its own website. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of RS available. Just tag the article for cleanup. STSC (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2013 (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.