Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Monaco (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Monaco

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

An event that happened 2x in the 1950's. Still no sources. Previous AfD had no objections after several relisting. A Prod was removed without any assertion of notability. The alleged winners don't have articles. Fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:CORPDEPTH Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2016

Oppose: While I normally cringe to debate notability of a beauty pageant article, this IS a national level pageant, it has been held more than twice, I found a few sources (looks like they didn't always go on to the biggest pageants, but they seem to have held some sort of event each year on and off). Plus, it appear to be part of an article series on international pageants (noting navbox) and so while this particular pageant is not a winning machine, it is part of a series, which also goes to GNG. Its relative length and lack of comprehensive statistics is not grounds for deletion, but I found a bit more stuff to add. It may never be more than start class, but hey, most of the winners of Miss Montana don't have articles, either and none ever have won Miss America (I think we has a Miss Congeniality once...) Montanabw ^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 05:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per immediately above to be honest. Not the most noteworthy of the bunch sure, but I personally find it hard to simply say it doesn't in any way shape or form belong on wikipedia. Though clearly could use a little love. NJA (t/c) 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable contest, article needs work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep [1] There is sufficient independent coverage to sustain this article. [2] The article needs improvements. [3] I'm opting for speedy keep as this article should not be listed for deletion every six weeks! gidonb (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:40, 6 February 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.