Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons
The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.
Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 189 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.
Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Beauty Pageants articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Beauty Pageants articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Image or Information colaboration
Hi everyone. In the profile page of the Miss Universe 2002 and runner up Justine Pasek his image is not very visible his face therefore cannot be recognized very well if anybody has any photo of her who could contribute where one sees clearly. talk | If a photo manages to see of her or some Miss Panama-Señorita Panamá hat information to add to his profile. Thank for help. Evanex 19:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
World Miss University
I am about to nominate the article World Miss University for deletion because it does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A Google News search found exactly 1 result, in a non-English language. The official website is a blank black page. Even unreliable sources like blogs don't seem to have much clear information. As this page is presumably of interest to this Wikiproject, I invite your comments on the AfD and/or improvements to the article to verify notability. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Request for photographs and images
To help address the many requests for photographs People-n-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of artists and entertainers to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of beauty pageant contestants if it is in a sub-category of Category:Beauty pageant contestants. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph and that the needs-photo flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveler100 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Miss Universe 1956
I came across Carol Morris during my work on Project Iowa + Project Cities Notable people and was appalled that it had only 2 sentences with no info-box to describe the only Miss Iowa to win a Miss USA title not to mention winning the Miss Universe in 1956. Beauty pageants is not my area but I did develop the article to the extent I think your project should evaluate it and repost it's quality and importance scales which are both ??? now. Also because it is not my area of knowledge maybe someone from your project could refine the article and you may have better sources to expand the article further. I also have questions about her movie career as even though I had cited reputable sources they conflict with other sources mainly the actor Jeff Chandler's filmography on Wikipedia. I think her movie career could be expanded but I also think there is another actress Carol Morris and again I am not familiar with this area. Also I suggest someone consider if the lead line needs improvement or not. I did remove the US-pageant-bio-stub template from the article. One last thing I did a check on article traffic and Carol's article averages 30 views a day for the last 3 years with spike of 932 views on August 24, 2010.
Keep up the good work. --RifeIdeas Talk 20:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
footer templates and autocollapse
I have noticed that the beauty pageant templates are among the few that do not use state=autocollapse. I have added some footer templates (Template:State Pageant Winners footer, Template:Miss USA delegates, and Template:Miss America Delegates) to some systems of templates. Without using autocollapse, it causes some template intensive pages like Shandi Finnessey to look a bit cluttered, but it complements other pages with fewer templates like Jeri Zimmerman. Implementing the commonly used autocollapse feature would alleviate this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Mother Daugter pageant
Do we have an article the mother-daughter pageant? Don't know its name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Templates vs. succession boxes
Now that most major titleholders have articles, why don't Miss USA, Miss America and Miss Universe use templates rather than succession boxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Template conversion
I have requested that {{Miss Universe Organization titleholders}}, {{Big Four Pageants titleholders}}, {{Miss Earth and runners-up titleholders}}, {{Miss World Continental Queen of Beauty Titleholders}}, {{Miss Dominican Republic Organization titleholders}}, {{Carousel Production Inc. titleholders}}, {{Miss Philippines-Earth titleholders}}, {{Miss Chile Titleholders}}, {{Vanbros titleholders}} and {{Greenwood Productions titleholders}} all be edited so that they can be used to create single-location editable navboxes such as {{Miss World Continental Queen of Beauty titleholders 2009}} and {{Big Four Pageants titleholders 2010}}. Now instead of going to four or five pages, you can edit in one location using the v/d/e buttons. Also, since dedicated templates now exist for each year, I have created footers that link them all. I have only done recent years for the first four templates on the list above. Others will have to do the rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
"Results summary" sections
I've noticed a great deal of pageantry articles contain "Results summary" sections detailing how individual contestants did at the following level of competition. These sections make little sense to me, as the article's emphasis should be on that pageant, not the next one, and the information these sections contain is already covered in the "Winners" table, where it more appropriately belongs and where it is still easily accessible. I've already removed quite a few of these sections for the reasons stated but felt I should leave this note (does anyone even visit this Project?) in case someone comes across my edits and is looking for a more detailed explanation or place to debate this issue. If you do respond here, make sure to let me know! Mbinebri talk ← 18:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree: I feel that the Results Summary sections should be included. The information is in the Winners Table; however this is a SUMMARY section. Many people use these state pageant pages to see how well a certain state has done at Nationals. The summary makes it easy to find that information; especially when they pageant has been around for a number of years.MissPageantNews (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
AfD: Regan Hartley
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Hartley. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I need a wiki page of miss usa 1993 fixed.
people are adding lots of rude things and its messing up alot of the stuff. can someone help me please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compwiz97 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Mallory Hagan copyedit request
The reviewer at Talk:Mallory Hagan/GA1 suggested that I request a copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Mrs. Pakistan World
I have been looking at the article Saiyma Haroon. Can each winner of Mrs. Pakistan World have an article?
She won when the competition was held in Oslo, so the Category: Beauty pageants in Pakistan might need changing. (She is a Norwegian citizen, from Oslo.)
Shouldn't articles about a beauty pageant inform in which city the contest was held in a particular year? --Normash (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Page for Miss Multiverse Pageant and TV reality program
Greetings everyone Could some of you please help impartially support with the development of the wiki information for Miss Multiverse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Multiverse Thank you in advance for your collaboration --Gausachs (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Gausachs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gausachs (talk • contribs)
Category:Beauty pageant hosts
Category:Beauty pageant hosts, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Miss Universe (2014)
Someone has created an article titled "Miss Universe (2014)" does anyone know how titles can be edited? The parentheses are not needed in the title. It should just be Miss Universe 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a mess. Please see Talk:Miss Asia Pacific World/Archives/2023 1#Recent modifications. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Notability of Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria winner?
I found the article Stephanie Okwu while doing New Page review. Is it notable? Does it need fixing? Should it be tagged with a "WikiProject Beauty Pageants" template? I'll leave these questions to the experts here! --Slashme (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Please see Sexualization in child beauty pageants. It is a somewhat poorly written article (reads more like a persuasive essay), and I'm not sure if the topic itself is valid, or whether it represents an inherent POV-fork. The kicker is that one of the cited reliable sources actually came to the page to remove their own quote, because they said it was being abused and taken out of context to support a position contrary to what her research was about. I almost brought it to AfD, but I figured I'd give you all a heads-up, it may be salvageable as a topic, with a major overhaul to the article as it stands today. Gigs (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet for Wikiproject Beauty Pageants at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
May Myat Noe
Another editor has created May Myat Noe. May Myat Noe won the Miss Asia Pacific World 2014 title in May 2014, but the organizers subsequently withdrew the title. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Pageant articles under attack
In the last week I have found myself in a battle with another editor, trying to delete articles about Pageants and their contestants. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International (2nd nomination) is still active. The core article in question needs writing help. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Manabí is another. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Beauty_pageant_contestants is a discussion that involves policy you might be interested in. See also the list below:
This is all content related to your project, which I think you will be the most qualified people to speak to the relevancy of these proposals. Trackinfo (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- I love it that you see this as a battle, as it is a good word for your battleground attitude. You are screaming here, there and everywhere that I am so horrible that you seem to have no other arguments than personal attacks. The sheer fact that you are thinking about RFC/U or even AN/I makes clear that you do not respond on arguments but on your own personal feelings.
- In fact, we just have a disagreement about notability. To my opinion a contestant is not automatically notable as soon as she has taken part in one of the four major pageants or their preliminary rounds. And I see pageant and preliminary events as WP:ONEEVENT. Most of the contestants has a surprising low number of Google hits, often just a few hundred unique hits. And often including Wikipedia, social media en related websites. I feel no need to turn this in a battleground, I just want notability proven beyond doubt. The Banner talk 19:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ever realized that list list can be seen as canvassing for votes against deletion? The Banner talk 13:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- And last: please realise that the closure of an AfD as "no consensus" does not mean that the concerned contestant is notable. The closer was neither convinced by de delete-arguments nor by the keep-arguments and decided to do nothing, just close the AfD. The Banner talk 15:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
has been nominated for deletion. Come on over to the AFD[1] and join in the debate....William 19:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Ron Wear up for deletion
The article Ron Wear has been nominated for deletion. Please discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Wear. (I'm curious - does winning a national beauty pageant automatically confer sufficient notability for a stand alone article?)--Wikimedes (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Ron Wear deletion discussion
Please see ongoing deletion discussion for Ron Wear, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Wear.
Thank you,
— Cirt (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
More AFDs (a lot of them, in fact)
RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Overhaul of "Miss X" articles
I'm not sure if this project is really active, but I thought it worthwhile to at least advertise my intentions...
There have been a lot of AfD about (mostly) American beauty pageant contestant articles lately. A lot have been kept, some deleted, and a few closed as "merge". I feel the last category is probably the best way to deal with many of these articles, and plan to start merging the ones with unproven notability (e.g. those closed as merge/delete [if any content is viable] at AfD). To make this feasible, I plan to overhaul the typical Miss X article. Currently such articles consist of 1) a prose lead; 2) a "results" section with bullet points on the contestants who placed in the top X at the national contest; and 3) a table of the winners.
The second section is entirely redundant to the table and parts of the table would be better handled as prose. My intention would be to 1) remove the current "results" section (making sure the info is indeed in the table); 2) streamline the table: taking out notes, making place sort properly; and 3) and make a new results section about the state contest. This would include information from the notes column and information from the non-notable bios. For example, the Carrie Lee AfD was closed as "merge". Her bio (in part) reads, the rest being filler that wouldn't be transferred:
- Lee won the Miss Minnesota USA title in a state pageant held in Bloomington in late 2005. This was her fourth attempt at the title as she had placed third runner-up to Sarah Cahill in 2003, was second runner-up in 2002 and made the semi-finals in 2001. She was the first woman from Sebeka to win the Miss Minnesota USA title.
This would become: The 2005 Miss Minnesota USA state pageant was held in Bloomington. Carrie Lee won it in what was her fourth attempt at the title. She had placed third runner-up to Sarah Cahill in 2003, was second runner-up in 2002, and made the semi-finals in 2001. She became the first woman from Sebeka to win the Miss Minnesota USA title.
Similarly, the Miss Minnesota USA table has notes for 2014 winner Haley O'Brien saying:
- Previously Miss Minnesota Teen USA 2010; previously Miss Collegiate America 2012
This would become:
- The 2014 title was won by Haley O'Brien who previously won Miss Minnesota Teen USA in 2010 and Miss Collegiate America in 2012.
I think this is both a good compromise between those who want these articles deleted and those who want them kept, and a good way to improve the state pageant articles. Naturally, I wouldn't be merging articles closed as keep (although some content could be copied from them to get a couple sentences about each year's pageant easily) or articles with significant content without clear consensus to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging some people who might be interested in this discussion based on participating in several of the AfDs or similar. @Dravecky, Davey2010, Ejgreen77, Legacypac, Northamerica1000, Postdlf, Ravenswing, and WordSeventeen: --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- One suggestion I definitely have is to present some mock-ups or examples of how the changes you're proposing here will look, before you go too hog-wild making changes to multiple articles. I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel better giving an opinion about something like this if I can see an actual concrete example in front of me. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- While I do believe that each of these state-level winners can pass WP:GNG given enough time and resources, I'm all for improving the state title articles, especially as recent events have reminded me how much easier it is for one person with an agenda to get masses of articles deleted than it is to bring many articles up to muster in a short time while also trying to live a life. - Dravecky (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I actually think Merging's a better idea, I also agree with Dravecky in that some probably can pass GNG but the ones that aren't should be Merged, Merge away lol :) –Davey2010Talk 01:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think this is an interesting proposal, but I do have a concern. In your comments ThaddeusB you say "plan to start merging the ones with unproven notability". Do you mean to do this to articles whose AFDs are closed with Merge? or no consensus? or an article that hasn't been AFDed? Who decides, and where is it to be decided that an article has "unproven notability"? I really mean no offense but I wish you could be very clear about that part of what you are proposing here. Also I am in agreement with Ejgreen77 that I would want to see a concrete example would look like before I will say if I am okay with it. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would start with the ones that closed as merge or redirect. Then do some that closed as delete. "No concensus" means no consensus for a merge either, so those would need a new consensus before any merge could be done. I'll do the Miss Minnesota USA article as an example within the next day or so. I certainly won't be rapidly making changes on many articles until there is more agreement that the changes are beneficial on a small sample. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I think that Dravecky has pretty well proved that 98% of the time, if you actually bother to look, reliable sources can be found, and solid articles can be written for the state-level winners of these particular pageant systems. With that said, whoever originally created a lot of these articles was very lazy. So, when it comes to the "articles" that are just a single sentence and a ref to Pageant Update (or some other blog - which are not RS, BTW), if no one is interested in adopting them and writing a proper article (with proper citations), I would have no problem if some one came along and WP:BOLDLY redirected them to the main pageant list article (with the understanding that if someone came along later and wanted to write a properly sourced article, they could be expanded out again). Frankly, that's what should have happened here in the first place, rather then sending everyone through all of the AfD drama of the past three weeks. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would start with the ones that closed as merge or redirect. Then do some that closed as delete. "No concensus" means no consensus for a merge either, so those would need a new consensus before any merge could be done. I'll do the Miss Minnesota USA article as an example within the next day or so. I certainly won't be rapidly making changes on many articles until there is more agreement that the changes are beneficial on a small sample. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think this is an interesting proposal, but I do have a concern. In your comments ThaddeusB you say "plan to start merging the ones with unproven notability". Do you mean to do this to articles whose AFDs are closed with Merge? or no consensus? or an article that hasn't been AFDed? Who decides, and where is it to be decided that an article has "unproven notability"? I really mean no offense but I wish you could be very clear about that part of what you are proposing here. Also I am in agreement with Ejgreen77 that I would want to see a concrete example would look like before I will say if I am okay with it. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- One suggestion I definitely have is to present some mock-ups or examples of how the changes you're proposing here will look, before you go too hog-wild making changes to multiple articles. I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel better giving an opinion about something like this if I can see an actual concrete example in front of me. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have now started work on Miss Minnesota USA, stopping at 2005 going backwards for creation of redirects and such. In other words, contestants prior to then haven't been addresses yet. The following was done:
- Table "notes" converted to text
- Unnecessary duplication removed
- Contestants who didn't have an article were redirected to the article (first checking if a previous version was deleted)
- If a contestant has a textual description, the redirect goes directly to their text (e.g. Carrie Lee)
- Text was added from contestants who do have articles where appropriate
- I am pausing here for feedback, since this is a lot of work, to make sure people view the changes as an improvement. Future work should include adding references & giving more winner brief (couple line) "bios" in the text, similar to what hgas already been done for people with "notes" or actual Wikipedia bio. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Miss America 2016
It took longer than I'd hoped but 52 articles donw (including a dozen DYKs and another half-dozen pending) all solidly referenced means the Miss America 2016 pageant field is the first complete set of contestant articles all the way from Miss Alabama 2015 Meg McGuffin to Miss Wyoming 2015 Mikaela Shaw. (Why 52? DC and Puerto Rico.) Now if only we had some photos to go with these articles.... - Dravecky (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Great work, Dravecky! Thank you! Too bad the Virgin Islands pageant folded up shop this year, ha! Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear beauty pageant enthusiasts: The above userbox template has been nominated for deletion. It seems that no one is using it. You may wish to take part in the the discussion.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment needed
Please comment at Talk:Miss Universe#Request for comment: Miss Universe 2015. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Kari Johnson up for deletion
A former Miss Hollywood, Kari Johnson, has been nominated for a WP:AFD. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- The result was delete. [[2]] Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Kayla Martell
I just wanted to point out that I started an article on Kayla Martell. I'm not familiar with your WikiProject at all, so I just wanted to point this out in case there are any project tags and such that you guys usually put on the articles of contestants. Dismas|(talk) 07:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- This article has not been AfD'd yet. Her baldness appears to add an element of uniqueness to her notability. Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
AfD on Miss Multiverse
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Multiverse It would be good if someone would take a look and perhaps rescue this article. I nominated it for AfD, but I'd much rather it were improved and kept. 09:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Are there any beauty pageants experts that can help with the Miss Multiverse wikipedia page before its to late? Missosology has created their second coverage of this pageant, but administrators here know so little about pageants that they don´t understand what missosology is: http://missosology.org/uncategorized/12017-miss-multiverse-2014-punta-cana-dominican-republic/
Urgent support needed, thank youJose Cuello (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like this one's been deleted 3 times so far. Legacypac (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Separate Articles for Discussion list for beauty pageants?
May I suggest that there be a dedicated deletion discussion list for beauty pageant related AFDs? Unless the person goes on to be a fashion model or designer or is otherwise involved in fashion, they usually have nothing to do with fashion, and it effectively amounts to spamming Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fashion. I'm copying below what I posted (with zero response, incidentally) a month ago on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting:
On the 6th February 2015, this is how the 52 active nominations on the Fashion AFD page broke down:
- 13 were legitimately relevant to fashion. (5 AFDs for brands and businesses; 7 for designers and fashion models.)
- 40 were beauty pageant related. (many were group noms.)
That's over 77% irrelevant AFDs in the Fashion AFD category - which is ridiculous. If an equivalent amount of off-topic/barely relevant stuff was dumped anywhere else, people wouldn't stand for it. It makes it very hard to properly focus on the nominated articles that ARE fashion-relevant.
I think this is something that really needs discussion/addressing. Plus, if the beauty pageant AFDs were in their own section, this will enable those who actually care about such articles such as ThaddeusB to address such nominations - and will cut down on at least one editor's snarky comments on them... Mabalu (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Tagging Gene93k as they do a lot of AFD sorting and are probably qualified to comment. Mabalu (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think you have to propose new delsort lists at WP:DELSORT. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Article alerts that serves a very similar purpose (but I suppose your interest is removing them from fashion, because you don't want to see them there, so that doesn't help). I'm pretty sure the pageant contestant AfDs are going to die out - now that almost all of them were kept, I doubt the mass nomination efforts will continue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- While I won't deny that I don't want to see many of these in the Fashion category I don't mind the occasional one popping up where it's clear from the article that the contestant in question is noted as having done fashion modelling work (as opposed to glamour) or has tried to become a designer or has otherwise been linked to the fashion industry and can be assessed on those merits. The huge, huge majority of these articles show none of this and are barely relevant as a result. And it has been an ongoing issue for years, but over the last year or so it has been particularly out of hand to the point where anywhere from half to three quarters of the page may be dominated by barely relevant nominations. I think a category dedicated to this particular subtopic would enable those with vested interest to focus on them, enabling those who are more concerned about real fashion topics to worry about their own AFDs. I really apologise for drawing this parallel, but if adult films and performers can be separated from mainstream film, then surely pageantry can be even more easily separated from fashion, to which it is even less relevant. Mabalu (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have replied at the delsort talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- While I won't deny that I don't want to see many of these in the Fashion category I don't mind the occasional one popping up where it's clear from the article that the contestant in question is noted as having done fashion modelling work (as opposed to glamour) or has tried to become a designer or has otherwise been linked to the fashion industry and can be assessed on those merits. The huge, huge majority of these articles show none of this and are barely relevant as a result. And it has been an ongoing issue for years, but over the last year or so it has been particularly out of hand to the point where anywhere from half to three quarters of the page may be dominated by barely relevant nominations. I think a category dedicated to this particular subtopic would enable those with vested interest to focus on them, enabling those who are more concerned about real fashion topics to worry about their own AFDs. I really apologise for drawing this parallel, but if adult films and performers can be separated from mainstream film, then surely pageantry can be even more easily separated from fashion, to which it is even less relevant. Mabalu (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have commented at the delsort talk page. That said, I sorted pageantry under fashion as a form of modelling. Since there is an objection, I'll stop. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Pageants are a form of modeling combined with entertainment (stage show). Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
FORK'D
- User Legacypac. You should not add the Afd tag to every article that you find to be within IDONTLIKEIT. Adding this tag to notable pageants like Miss Earth etc is just very strange. These Big4 pageants are watched by millions of people and each years articles is notable. I wold just urge you to re-consider this deletionist mind of yours. I have seen that you add Afd tags to clearly notable articles that are Overflown by Keep !votes within hours. It is time to become more selective. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Miss Earth is not nominated, BabbaQ. And to you have real arguments instead of accusations? The Banner talk 23:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've successfully deleted a long list of fluff or crap articles through AfD. I should keep a list of Redlinks to point people like you at when they make BS allegations. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Guys, we're trying to have a constructive discussion about improving the encyclopedia here, to find common ground between editors with obviously varying viewpoints. If you want to just bring up old grudges and toss accusations around instead of addressing the subject matter of the thread, then you're fucking shit up. Here, have your own thread. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've successfully deleted a long list of fluff or crap articles through AfD. I should keep a list of Redlinks to point people like you at when they make BS allegations. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Miss Earth is not nominated, BabbaQ. And to you have real arguments instead of accusations? The Banner talk 23:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Notability guideline
I notice there have been a lot of pageant winner bios nominated for deletion recently, and a lot of flak about it here and there. I notice that the nominations variously refer to WP:NOPAGE and WP:NMODEL but I'm not sure if these notability guidelines are good enough to apply to this subject matter. In particular, pageant winners can probably be considered models but are they really entertainers? And can their notability really be graded against people whose professional career is in entertainment?
A good task for this project would be to discuss and determine reasonable guidelines for when a pageant winner is likely to be notable per the general notability guideline. For example: participants in or winners of what level of contest, multiple winners, and so on. Based of course on the likelihood of coverage in reliable sources, like our other guidelines.
Has anyone thought about doing this, or has it been attempted before? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: As far as WP:NMODEL, goes, well, just no. The vast majority of beauty pageant contestants are not professional models, nor will they ever become professional models, so WP:NMODEL is totally irrelevant to pageant contestant notability. Starting with the obvious fact that professional models get paid for their work, while beauty pageant contestants never do. This has been explained to Legacypac at least a dozen times, but it's like butting your head against a brick wall, unfortunately. As far as a standard goes, please see this comment I made during one of the recent dust-ups. IMHO, it pretty accurately sums up the problem with establishing a universal standard for international pageant notability, as I see it. I honestly don't know what any kind of possible solution would be, other than evaluating each contestant on a case-by-case basis against the bedrock notability standard of WP:GNG, which, ultimately, is what every one would have to pass, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The personal attacks are very unbecoming. Please focus on policy, not editors.
Given that bio after bio starts with "Suzy Winner is an American model and winner of Miss East Dakota 2015..." but when you check the supplied model profile link it's dead already.
NMODEL actually is not just about Models - it says:
Entertainers
Shortcuts: WP:ENT WP:ENTERTAINER WP:NACTOR WP:NMODEL
Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
- Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
- Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
- Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
A Miss Wherever is a minor celebrity (her claim to fame). She clearly models swimsuits, gowns etc and is judged on such during an event or series of rounds of an event. She performs on a stage with others doing the same things. Every pageant is a stage and/or tv production complete with a director, crew, lights, host, and so on. Many Miss's use pageants to further a hoped for acting, modeling, or onscreen journalism career and sometimes it works. They also are getting paid (often through scholarships, but also cash and prizes, especially in the international events). Pageants are obvious entertainment, complete with celebrity hosts, fansites, trivia, and more, just like TV shows and productions of Disney on Ice.
The actual reason that pageant fans oppose the self evident application of the Entertainers guideline is that only a few pageant winners successfully build their win into a large fan base or make any unique, prolific or innovative contribution to the field of entertainment. Just like all types of entertainers, its a tough road to fame, and most only taste a little before fading back into a normal life.
There simply is no better category fit in Wikipedia policy for this group of people. Legacypac (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, what you both said is why I think it's a discussion worth having. I agree that pageant contestants don't quite fit into NMODEL (as they're not really entertainers despite the pageant being an entertainment medium) and there is not currently a better notability guideline, which is why I propose making one. Winners of certain pageants are more likely to receive coverage in reliable sources (and thus pass GNG). I also believe it's entirely reasonable to say that U.S. pageant winners are more likely to be notable, if that is in fact the case (and I think it probably is). But which pageants? That part is beyond my knowledge. I would guess the major American contests: Miss America, Miss USA, Miss Universe, and their variations. But I don't really know. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Is the argument that pageant winners are amateurs as opposed to professionals? Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, I don't think that matters at all. Only which pageant winners (/contestants) are more likely to be covered in reliable sources. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Is the argument that pageant winners are amateurs as opposed to professionals? Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I ask because "The vast majority of beauty pageant contestants are not professional models, nor will they ever become professional models..." and so many (say Crystal Garrett) say model. Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: If you come across a pageant-related bio article (or any other bio article, for that matter) that says "model" and the individual is not a professional model, then, by all means, remove the label. That is a simple editing issue. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where you're going with that, but I agree with the statement: success in pageantry does not forecast a career in modelling. Some pageant winners go on to be models, but also some go on to be businesspeople, politicians, or any number of mundane professions. Anyway the point of a notability guideline is not to predict future notability but to be an easy predictor of present notability; pageant winners who go on to do something else notable would obviously be notable anyway, that's not the point here. Say for next year: are reliable sources likely to cover the winners and/or contestants of the upcoming Miss America? The state-level feeder pageants? Others leading up to that? And in enough detail to create separate articles? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Now, we're starting to get to the heart of the matter. We need to get down to the crux of it and determine what pageant titles are actually important and whose title winners can be judged to have completed a significant achievement. First of all, I will state up front that I live in the US, so that is the only country that I have any first hand working knowledge of. Here in the US, there are literally dozens of pageant systems. Teen pageants, Mrs. pageants (for married women), ethnic pageants, plus-size pageants, Cinderella pageants, male pageants, transgender pageants, little girl pageants, etc. But, there are only two pageant systems whose titles have any kind of history or significance to them, the state-level and national-level titles of the Miss America system, and the state-level and national-level titles of the Miss USA system. Just to anticipate the questions about Miss Teen USA and Miss America's Outstanding Teen, the two teen pageant systems associated with Miss USA and Miss America, respectively, I think that their association with the "big sister" pageants probably makes those pageants (and their state-level affiliates) notable, and the national winners are probably notable, too, but I would not presume auto-notability for the state-level winners of any teen pageant. But, that's it. For all of the others (Miss Teenage America, Miss Black America, Miss High School America, Miss Latin America, Miss Teen All American, etc.), quite frankly, I'm not even sure if the pageant itself is notable, and the individual winners, in all honesty, have not achieved any type of significant achievement by winning those pageants, so I would not presume them notable at all unless they have done something else noteworthy (like, say, later pulling a Miss America state title, or in the case of Miss Teen All American 1985, Halle Berry, gone on to a career as an actress).
- As far as the coverage available, I would suggest that the excellent work done by User:Dravecky on the Miss America 2016 class of articles would tend to suggest that there is enough coverage available for the state and national level winners of these particular pageant systems to consistently meet WP:GNG. Unfortunately, and this is where Legacypac does have a bit of a legitimate point, many users who created pageant articles in the past were very sloppy, and consequently, many pageant-related bio articles are very poorly written and constructed. It can be tough for a person who is not familiar with pageants to assess notability for these articles because, even in cases that would pass GNG, the sources aren't in the articles. IMHO, this is where a lot of the confusion on this issue comes from. Obviously, in cases that meet GNG, this is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I ask because "The vast majority of beauty pageant contestants are not professional models, nor will they ever become professional models..." and so many (say Crystal Garrett) say model. Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Now you are making some sense Ejgreen77. I don't agree with everything you say but there is some common ground.
Agreement on Point 1. If someone become Halle Berry and editors want to mention she was once Little Miss Springfield at age 4 that correctly and on topic shows an early interest in entertainment.
Possible agreement on Point 2. There is wide acceptance that Miss Teen USA state winners don't get stand alone articles, as evidenced by the general lack of them and the delete votes on them. I went through every state page for Miss Teen USA and sent the handful of article on individual state winners (with no other claim to fame) to AfD all at once and across all states, all years there were under 10 standalone article. It is not credible that a child winning these titles is noteworthy, even if there is a human interest story in the local paper. Winning something global like World_Individual_Debating_and_Public_Speaking_Championships#Past_Championships regional, state, national and international gets only your name listed in Wikipedia in a table. Winning state high school volleyball or soccer, or getting lead in a high school stage play gets you nothing on Wikipedia.
Agreement on Point 3. The minor pageant systems are barely or not notable, and their winners should not automatically given articles even with some routine press coverage. I believe these pageant systems should be treated like any other business on Wikipedia.
Agreement on Point 4. There is a lot of sloppy articles out there with unsourced claims.
Legacypac (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is a really good start, I'm glad to see there's some agreement on some key points here. I spent a bit of time trying to come up with general criteria for pageants and their contestants, but then I had to catch a bus, so that's all gone. Yay! Actually I think the pageants themselves are probably fine to be subject to WP:ORG, and Ejgreen77's observations really back that up anyway, so I don't think that's controversial. Pageant contestants are a little less clear, and I think a guideline would be helpful. I spent some time going through a random selection of pageant winners' articles to evaluate their sourcing, including many that Legacypac already nominated, to see whether there is a pattern to quality sourcing correlating with various levels of competition. Here's what I've come up with:
- Winners of the Big Four competitions are basically automatically notable. Sourcing is very good, and likely that sourcing could be improved easily in cases where the sourcing is not so good. And in many cases these women go on to do other notable things anyway, although that shouldn't really be a consideration.
- Winners of the national feeder contests for the Big Four tend to be notable.
- In the United States, winners of the state-level feeder competitions tend to be notable. US pageant culture lends itself to more in-depth coverage of lower-level pageant competitions. This is a bias of course, but it's not Wikipedia's bias, it's a natural bias reflected in the available sourcing.
- As Ejgreen77 suggested, winners of the offshoot and related competitions (Miss Teen USA, etc) are not notable for that competition. Some go on to do other notable things, but they are notable for the other things, not for their pageant career.
- Generally speaking, winners of other pageants (men, married women, transgender individuals, youth, etc) are rarely notable for their pageant activity, which is another external bias reflected in available sourcing. As above, some do other notable things. In particular, some may be notable for being the first winner of a particular competition, but I don't know for sure of any examples.
- Does that sound about right? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: First of all, thank you for putting this together! Second of all, in general, yes, I think we're headed in the right direction here. I do want to clarify one thing I said earlier about the Miss Teen USA and Miss America's Outstanding Teen state-level pageants. While I would not presume that every single state-level teen titleholder is automatically going to be notable, I would also not automatically presume that every single state-level teen titleholder in these two particular systems is not going to be notable. Let me put it this way; for the "big sister" competitions of Miss America and Miss USA, there are 50+ titleholders every year (50 states, plus DC, Puerto Rico, etc.) Like I said, and I think Dravecky's research work bears this out, I believe that those titleholders are going to be notable. For the related teen competitions, there are also 50+ titleholders every year and of those teen titleholders, there may be five or less (including the winner!) that may be able to pass WP:GNG, with the rest not being able to pass it. Part of this is simply because of the history at play here. Miss America was founded in 1921, and Miss USA in 1952. In contrast, Miss Teen USA was founded in 1983, while Miss America's Outstanding Teen didn't come into being until 2006 (though several of the individual state-level teen pageants in that system actually precede the national pageant by roughly a decade). IMHO, this is part of the reason why the "big sister" competitions get more third party coverage, there's simply a whole lot more history, tradition, and significance behind those titles. And, to me, that's really what it's all about; winning Miss Alabama or Miss South Carolina is a significant accomplishment, winning Miss High School America means absolutely nothing (in all honesty, it would be barely worth noting in a bio article about someone who was already notable for something else). IMHO, the Miss Teen USA and Miss America's Outstanding Teen state-level titles fall in a sort of gray area in between somewhere, in that they're not extremely significant, yet they're not totally insignificant, either (thanks largely to their affiliation with Miss America and Miss USA). In general, though, most state-level teen titleholders are not going to be notable. I do agree completely with your point #5, though. Things like transgender pageants, little girl pageants, etc. tend to have far more in common with carnival sideshows then they do with actual competitions.
- As far as the international pageants go, I will freely admit that is not my area of expertise at all. In general, from what I've seen, it seems to me that pageant winners in Europe, East Asia, and South America tend to get a certain amount of coverage (with a most of it being foreign-language, of course). But, for some of the more obscure countries (Miss Swaziland, Miss Congo (RDC), Miss Kyrgyzstan, etc.) I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for third-party coverage of those contestants and competitions. But, like I said, I am not an expert on international pageants, at all. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Winners of Miss State or Miss State USA are not automatically notable. Coverage is usually WP:ROUTINE in RS and very limited, often to one or two namechecks. [3] I've seen so many editors assert that here ARE Reliable Sources, but no good sources appear, leaving blogs, fan sites and old facebook posts. Even the pageant organizers, who are not limited by webhosting, pull the minibios they post for the winners after their year is up. Often we can't validate anything in the article.
Having read as many as 1000 of these articles I've come to see some common types of participants:
- a) The pageant girl like Meg McGuffin who starts young and joins every pageant she can. May even move between states trying different venues. Eventually gets a state title, fails to place at the national and goes off to do something else. Not notable generally. Definitely does not deserve indepth coverage including her license plate number, nicknames, what she did at age 6 etc. This type of coverage borders on creepy.
- b) The scholarship girl who enters because she can win some money. Seeks and gets little to no press and fails to win the national crown. Often quoted in an interview with "I never thought about entering before but my friend said I could get a scholarship. This was the most exciting thing in my whole life!" Uses the money to become a pre-school teacher or dental hygienist or some other job where we will never hear from them again. These are low profile individuals who (maybe want and) deserve only to be named on a list of winners.
- c) publicity hounds like Tara Teng who give up and go have kids when they tire of their big cause.
- d) Wannabe actress/TV personality/entertainer/models who try (sometimes with success) to turn the win into more exposure. Thy get on reality tv, become weather girls, pick up a modeling gig or two etc. If they are even a little successful in a related field I leave their page alone and wish them luck. Legacypac (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The nomination at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_20#Template:Miss Earth titleholders 2001 needs some contributors.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Miss Nederland
The articles Miss Nederland 2013 and Miss Nederland 2016 are both nominated for deletion. – Editør (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
is at RFD here[4]. Please come on over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Project member Dravecky died a few days ago
Dravecky (talk · contribs) died last Saturday, April 23. See his talk page for details.
He is listed as a member of this WikiProject. I will leave it up to his fellow WikiProject participants to decide when it would be appropriate to remove him from the list of active participants. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
María José Torrenegra up for deletion
Coming from WP:COLOMBIA, I put this article up for deletion a few days ago as I didn't think she passed notability for her own Wikipedia article. I've since found out that this WikiProject has stub articles on every Miss Universe contestant, so Miss Torrenegra isn't alone. Nevertheless, it's only fair that the members of this project are notified of the deletion discussion and can voice their opinions here. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Auto-assessment of article classes
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.
If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 22:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Heba El-Sisy
What should be done with this article? A recent edit changed some information and broke a template. The article contains two links:
- http://www.eluniverso.com/2004/05/23/0001/18/9287B494FE7949D9A8929337802F51DC.html
page does not exist
- http://hebaelsisy.net/
domain does not exist
The first link (the only reference) is archived here. According to Google Translate, the article describes a parade; the only mention of the subject is "Miss Egypt Heba El-Sisy, had to be attended yesterday in Guayaquil, moments before the parade of floats." Miss Egypt says the subject was "unplaced". I did a very superficial Google search without finding anything relevant to WP:N. I see there is a notability RfC above—participants might like to give thoughts on this article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- The editor made 3 changes across those 2 edits. Since two of the changes absolutely had to be undone and the third was was unsubstantiated, I just reverted the whole shebang and left a polite welcome message on the editor's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
AFDs of national Miss Teen USA titleholders
John Pack Lambert has now AFD-ed three national Miss Teen USA titleholders: Katie Blair, Tami Farrell, Kristi Addis. You're pushing your luck there, mate.
Btw for all these people who are saying state titleholders are not-notable as per BIO1E, I finally got a chance to look and your logic mystifies me. It says that "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.
Please explain to me how the third condition is met in most of these cases? PageantUpdater (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just go there and cast your !vote with your reasoning. NPA and AGF, you know. Let the community consensus decide. Also, you might want to watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts, because that's where most of the pageant AfD's are flagged. Montanabw(talk) 18:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Deletion sorting/Beauty Pageants
Given the vast array of open AFDs and the difficulty of perusing all of them I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beauty Pageants. There are currently 70 open AFDs. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
An AFD of possible interest.
The article Miss intercontinental has been recreated. It has been nominated for deletion here[5]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Essay vs SNG
I'm copying this from one of the AfDs, as I believe it may be relevant. I'm leaning towards a WP:NPAGEANT essay vs SNG, for clearer relationship with GNG. Copy / paste follows:
- Keep for now We are clearly doing quite a lot of pageant AfDs right now, and for most of the subjects I have seen, I have agreed with K.e.coffman that nothing in the RfC discussion suggested a change that would make the subjects (subnational pageant winners) more wiki-notable, only possibly less so. But in this case I'm not so sure. The discussion really hasn't yet addressed the question of winning multiple separate subnational pageants. I think it's worth leaving for now, I don't doubt it will be revisited if the RFC outcome does not deem her notable. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- Any pageant SNG (if created) would not trump GNG. I still don't see how the subject has met GNG by "receiving significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article says very little about the subject, and the sources in the article are not close enough to develop a reliable, balanced biography of a living person. So whether or not the hypothetical SNG would take into account multiple sub-national competitions, the articles would still be measured against GNG as the ultimate arbiter. So my suggestions is that we should continue with this AfD on the GNG basis, which we have been doing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe that it's a settled matter of consensus either that this SNG will not trump GNG, or that an SNG can never trump GNG--and for what it's worth, I mainly draw that impression from the number of people I've seen object when an SNG is held to overrule GNG. It's not that I don't understand the objection, but I don't think it's settled. That additional question is another reason, in my mind, to wait and see what the consensus is at the SNG RfC. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here's WP:SOLDIER that I'm most familiar with, since my foray into AfD started there:
- In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:
- Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour, or
- Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; etc.
- In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:
- As can be seen, the criteria part of it is a "helper" to understand under what circumstances sufficient coverage is likely to be available. I.e. if any or several criteria are met, it does not mean that the subject is guaranteed an article. I assume the pageant SNG would be framed along the same lines... (However, WP:SOLDIER is an essay; so perhaps the pageant SNG should be an essay as well?) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here's WP:SOLDIER that I'm most familiar with, since my foray into AfD started there:
- Ah ok I see where you're coming from. Yeah, so some of them have a very different relationships to GNG (for instance the language at WP:ACADEMIC--a guideline--says: This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.[1] It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.) And others are sort of muddy about how they relate to GNG (like WP:ARTIST, another guideline), which is the source of much contention--here's one discussion where I learned quite a lot about a variety of perspectives on this, should you wish to go down this rabbit hole! To be frank I've become rather muddied myself about which I think ought to be how the SNGs related to GNG, but, at minimum I don't think it's certain a SOLDIER-like formulation will be the result (even if it's possible I might wind up arguing it should be!) Innisfree987 (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
++++++++
- Thoughts on SNG vs essay? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure the reason that SOLDIER has a clearer relationship to GNG is because it's an essay. It might just be better written (!) or it might just have a different group consensus than other topics have had--I was only pointing out the guideline thing to emphasize how a variety of approaches have actually succeeded in getting consensus in different areas, rather than there being one really clear idea of how SNGs relate to GNG. And I do tend to think that if we can get consensus on SOMETHING, it'd be better to commit to it a guideline, for sake of not rehashing at AfD over and over. We could do an essay as a fallback if we can't agree on what to put in an SNG, as it at least gives some guidance (likewise, expected outcomes could be another plan b), but it's not as helpful in improvin AfD inefficiency, since people often crop up to point out, indeed, an essay was not agreed upon as consensus and thus is open to being contested. Innisfree987 (talk)
- Update to note that I've proposed closure on this point, for anyone who'd like to weigh in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Proposal_for_closure
Miss Universe 2016 hosts
Alex Duilius is disputing the nature of the hosting rights of the Philippines of the Miss Universe 2016 since no source directly from the Miss Universe Organization has been retrieved. They are requesting for an admin, more experienced editors regarding this issue. See the Talk Page for discussion. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Notability criteria for pageant contestants/models?
Hi all, are there any specific notability criteria for beauty pageant contestants and models? I'm aware of WP:NMODEL, but that seems to focus mostly on porn actors. (I've opened a discussion on that talk page to get some clarification). I've encountered a user who has created a variety of articles on beauty pageant contestants, and many of them have been nommed for deletion. I was hoping to point this user to some clear notability guidelines. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I just noticed that there is a discussion about this very thing above. I could just delete the comment, but I think this should serve as a real-world example of why we need specific criteria. 
Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments requested at Template talk:Infobox pageant titleholder
Hi all, comments are requested at Template talk:Infobox pageant titleholder. The issue is about whether we can add a |native_name= parameter to the infobox, which would bring the infobox more into conformity with other templates like Template:Infobox person. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to wait a few more days. If there are no objections to this proposal, I'll move ahead with the implementation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Move discussion at the Murder of JonBenét Ramsey article
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Murder of JonBenét Ramsey#Requested move 20 September 2016. Among the concerns noted in the move discussion is whether or not WP:Undue weight is being given to a recent documentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I have requested semi protection due to excessive levels of vandalism. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Proposed deletion flood
This is just to note that a flood (dozens?) of proposed deletions of articles of interest to the project have appeared today. Examples include Miss U.S. International 2015 and Tanisha Demour. I have no expertise in this field and a review by more experienced editors would be welcome. --Mark viking (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wow. More like 100 over the past 2 days. [6]. One of the articles proposed for deletion had 58 references. @Richie Campbell: is there any chance you're being just a bit overenthusiastic in your nominations? --GRuban (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi GRuban, did you check those 58 references if they are really reliable sources? --Richie Campbell (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah. With a domain size of 58, even a small fraction of the total is plenty of sources: Kyiv Post, TV Guide, Vecherniy Kharkov... --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Couple notes--free advice so you know what they say, you get what you pay for! Might help, Richie Campbell, to keep in mind prods are for "uncontroversial deletion." I don't know how much contact you've had with the pageant area of WP before, so you might not have realized there's been quite a bit of controversy about these deletions, but this talk page should give an indication! So caution about PROD versus nomination to AfD might be warranted; you wouldn't want it to come off as an end run around good-faith disagreement.
- And then I'd also say being assiduous with the WP:BEFORE item D checks goes a long way toward keeping everyone working together collegially. Especially at AfD (the thing that brought me and quite a few others to the pageant discussion over the last couple months), one person nominating for deletion without spending a few minutes searching for alternative sources for each entry causes five or ten AfD participants all to have to go look up the same sources. I'm sure you can understand how people get grouchy about that fast.
- Just a few ideas in hopes they can help sort this out smoothly, cheers all, Innisfree987 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi GRuban, did you check those 58 references if they are really reliable sources? --Richie Campbell (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I know nothing of this subject, but both articles listed above were created by sock operators AnnLivinova and Zack Martin 2000. I'm also noticing that some of the others nominated [7][8][9][10][11] seem to come from pernicious accounts. Mrdhimas is another sock farm involved, as is پارسا آملی. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mostly, those articles were created by editors that were banned/blocked from editing due to Sockpuppet investigations. Anyway, I nominated those articles due to no significant coverage from reliable sources and mostly they participated in not notable international pageants like Miss Intercontinental, Miss Supranatural that were deleted many times through AfD. --Richie Campbell (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- There are a few editors who are ganging up on the subject of Beauty Pageant contestants and are nominating this flood. It is going to take help from more editors to search out all the sources and reveal the fallacy of their deeds. And Richie, please don't wikilawyer this. These contestants get fairly consistent coverage both locally and from national media. Trackinfo (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, you know I was one of several people who wanted to see if we could find consensus on creating a more systematic way to handle this, but Trackinfo you opposed the first proposal about how to take a step forward, and didn't offer an alternative. So absent engaging the group to establish consensus for an SNG, I think you're actually quite right, the onus will tend to be on editors who want something to be included in the encyclopedia to find the sourcing to meet GNG. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- What I opposed is an embedded bias to discount local coverage proposed immediately above my comment. The two people immediately above me were the two most prominent serial nominators who are causing the current problem. Yes, if they get their way, only things sourced through the NYT will be reliable. This country's broad national interest is in danger of losing the fourth estate because our local media is having difficulties with the financial model in the internet age. That's a recent issue. There are a lot of stories we would never know about without local reporters, boots on the ground, telling us what is happening in small communities. To discount all of them as non-reliable in one swath just to achieve the goal of eliminating beauty pageants is blatantly false. Trackinfo (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Trackinfo, if that's what you objected to rather than the idea of an SNG at all, you might consider changing your vote. There are quite a few of us who would like to try to draft something to make sure this is handled fairly, but we really can't go forward if someone's opposed the whole endeavor (maybe if we had, I don't know, 20 supporters and just one opposer, but I don't feel comfortable doing it with six yeses and one no). As I said in my reply to you there, the only aspect of that discussion that's binding is the idea of starting an SNG, not what it should say. If we agree on trying to make one, we'll still have to draft it and seek separate consensus on that; if we can't develop consensus, the SNG won't go up at all. So there's still plenty of opportunity for you to voice on your opinion on what sources should count, etc. Of course in the end whatever consensus is, we will all have to respect, but that's going to be true whether this is handled by SNG or dealing with every case individually at AfD. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- For that matter: I can only guess, but I'm inclined to think we're likely to get a broader, fairer sense of community consensus by working on an SNG than by continuing to go through AfDs one by one, which gets exhausting after a certain point unless you're either really motivated to delete pageant entries or really motivated to keep them. Working on an SNG could bring contributions from a lot more editors who are uninvolved except insofar as they'd like to reduce workload and antagonism at AfD. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Trackinfo, if that's what you objected to rather than the idea of an SNG at all, you might consider changing your vote. There are quite a few of us who would like to try to draft something to make sure this is handled fairly, but we really can't go forward if someone's opposed the whole endeavor (maybe if we had, I don't know, 20 supporters and just one opposer, but I don't feel comfortable doing it with six yeses and one no). As I said in my reply to you there, the only aspect of that discussion that's binding is the idea of starting an SNG, not what it should say. If we agree on trying to make one, we'll still have to draft it and seek separate consensus on that; if we can't develop consensus, the SNG won't go up at all. So there's still plenty of opportunity for you to voice on your opinion on what sources should count, etc. Of course in the end whatever consensus is, we will all have to respect, but that's going to be true whether this is handled by SNG or dealing with every case individually at AfD. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- What I opposed is an embedded bias to discount local coverage proposed immediately above my comment. The two people immediately above me were the two most prominent serial nominators who are causing the current problem. Yes, if they get their way, only things sourced through the NYT will be reliable. This country's broad national interest is in danger of losing the fourth estate because our local media is having difficulties with the financial model in the internet age. That's a recent issue. There are a lot of stories we would never know about without local reporters, boots on the ground, telling us what is happening in small communities. To discount all of them as non-reliable in one swath just to achieve the goal of eliminating beauty pageants is blatantly false. Trackinfo (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, you know I was one of several people who wanted to see if we could find consensus on creating a more systematic way to handle this, but Trackinfo you opposed the first proposal about how to take a step forward, and didn't offer an alternative. So absent engaging the group to establish consensus for an SNG, I think you're actually quite right, the onus will tend to be on editors who want something to be included in the encyclopedia to find the sourcing to meet GNG. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- There are a few editors who are ganging up on the subject of Beauty Pageant contestants and are nominating this flood. It is going to take help from more editors to search out all the sources and reveal the fallacy of their deeds. And Richie, please don't wikilawyer this. These contestants get fairly consistent coverage both locally and from national media. Trackinfo (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)