User talk:Mauriziok/Miss Earth 2015

{{Talk header}} {{Old AfD multi | date = 18 May 2015 | result = '''keep''' | page = Miss Earth 2015 | date2 = 10 December 2015 | result2 = '''keep''' | page2 = Miss Earth 2001 | date3 = 10 December 2015 | result3 = '''procedural keep''' | page3 = Miss Earth 2015 (2nd nomination)}} {{WikiProject Austria |class=C |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Beauty Pageants |class=C |importance=Low}}

About Miss Earth 2015

The corrected article and by adding reliable references to female candidates. Some have been eliminated since there is no reference although inquired in the network. The date is not confirmed, it is too early to know if this is just carrying out the 2014 edition; Realize which in November this year want to say that in 2015 too. The benchmark returns are not in the majority, I noticed that the countries that are supposed to compete in 2015 and ultimately not realized their involvement but that is not reliable; that have not participated in 2014 does not certify that a candidate will do the same in 2015, at least there is no reference to demonstrate it. Note: Maira Alaxandra, Miss Earth Venezuela ME represent the country in 2015 but due to the dismissal of Stephanie Zorzi, was designated in 2014. The Miss Venezuela org has not ruled on the country representative for this edition.Jaam0121 (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

What's the reason behind the proposed deletion of this article? The Miss Earth 2015 will be held and that is already confirmed by the MEO. Even the Philippines will crown their queen on the 31st. Anyway, I hope the tag for deletion be removed immediately. As for the unreliable sources, I'm having a hard time to clear that as well. I suggest that this article be locked to be edited by anyone except for those who knows the real and reliable sources and not just by assumption. I agree with you Jaam.

No date, no place, no sources for the pageant itself (all the sources belong to the contestants). This is just one crystal boll and advertising. Ow, and you are at the wrong place to discuss this deletion. The Banner talk 17:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing conform WP:RS/advertising

This article reads as one massive advertisement for an event. It fails miserably on sources and reliable sources. Good sources should be independent (not pageant related in any way), reliable (no social media) and prior published conform WP;Reliable Sources. I hereby announce that Christmas I will remove all unsourced sections and all unsuitable sources. (And then at the end of January I will come back and remove all unsourced sections and all section again only sourced by unsuitable sources.) The Banner talk 10:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably delete the Miss Universe articles and Miss World articles too. Not only Miss Earth articles. How can these sources not pageant related if the event itself is the pageant? Why not instead of removing, find a suitable source and replace the unsuitable sources with new suitable sources? You don't have to remove the informations as it is part of the event, especially the special awards and the contestants' names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmetahny (talk • contribs) 16:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BURDEN The Banner talk 18:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - Miss Universe and Miss Earth will get the same treatment. Blogs about pageants are not RS. Pageant company sites are not independent sources. Legacypac (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reason why all other information was deleted especially the names of the delegates (not only in 2015 but since 2001). I do not see any related incident to other pageants like Miss Universe and Miss World (that I know of) where some of the sources are being included as well. What is happening to Miss Earth related articles now are more "I hate Miss Earth", at least to me. Deletion is necessary if there won't be any more solutions such as revision or inclusion of more credible sources. -Artchino (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one hates Miss Earth, it's a case of restricting the article to policy. Miss Earth does not even keep all this excessive detail on it's own website so why should Wikipedia? Legacypac (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contestants section restored

I have restored the Contestants section content. It was removed with a generic rationale pointing to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections page. This is not a trivia section in the article, it is a valid list of contestants that is well-verified in the article. Furthermore, this section can be improved with the addition of sources that are more reliable, which are easily found (see the find sources examples below). Referring to the section as a trivia section is incorrect, and it was also subjective for it to be removed under this rationale. If the intention was to remove the content as "trivial", that is also subjective, because Wikipedia is based upon what sources report, which has more weight than subjective editor opinion about what is trivial or not. It's a valid list of participants.

The user who removed the content nominated this article for deletion in the past (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2015 (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2001, the latter of which resulted in a "keep" result), so this blanket removal comes across as a potential effort or tactic to then strip the article because the user did not attain their desired deletion result. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not quite. A pageant is a stage/tv production involving modelling. The 'contestants/models' are cast. We would not list 80+ members of any production as playing a significant role, especially a bunch of people that are not notable. Multiple editors have been removing this ListCruft that is mainly sourced to Angelopedia which is a fansite, not a RS. Legacypac (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this overall viewpoint. Many of the subjects in the Contestants section have articles, so they are not "non notable" based upon simple assertion lacking evidence to qualify the assertion. The fact that some of the contestants have articles attests to their notability. Also, see WP:RELIABLE, where it states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." As stated above, the list is easily verifiable with higher-quality sources, such as the following examples that are already used in the section: [1], [2], [3], [4]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most should not have articles as they fail WP:NMODEL. I watch a lot of pageant pages and am continually amazed how winners and participants change years after the event. Do not restore improperly sourced material, especially after the warnings here. See WP:BURDEN. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several reliable sources to the Contestants section, and many more are quite easily found. See the article's revision history for examples. Please allow me and others to actually continue verifying the content as I have begun, without continuously reverting the work. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winners of beauty pageants never change years after the event. It can only happen in a scenario when a winner is dethroned and that can only happen during the winner's reign which, on average, is one year.This is speculatory on my part but maybe we should be looking at possible vandalism? - rebskii

Agreed, but when Editor A comes along and puts Mary won 3 years ago, then B puts Sue as the winner, and then C puts Jane as the winner and none of the editors cite a RS how to sort this out? Since RS are sorely lacking across this topic, the answer is delete the info until someone provides a high quality source. Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am in doubt. In fact, the section "Contestants" could also be renamed as "Losers" or "Non-winners". Most of the misses will return to obscurity and/or fall foul of WP:ONEEVENT shortly afterwards. In fact, for them it is a version of the "15 minutes of fame".

Problem with the present list is that many are "sourced" with related sources, failing WP:RS.The Banner talk 00:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity Missoligy, pageant forums, and such are not RS as they are blogs, forums, user generated, and have no editorial oversight. Legacypac (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are Instagram or Facebook. And quite a few times you have fake sources, amongst others at Miss Bahamas, Miss El Salvador etc. The Banner talk 00:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linkbombing an article with links that only establish who won an event or worse who won the event before the one a model was actually in is also inappropriate. Refs need to be about the subject, not other subjects and must be in depth coverage not 'local person wins award' filler. Legacypac (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources can be used to verify content, but secondary and tertiary sources are preferred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many more independent, reliable sources and inline citations have been added to the Contestants section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could you just add reliable sources instead of removing the requests for better sources? The Banner talk 11:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources I recently added to the article include the following, which are most certainly reliable and independent. ~~It's unclear why you think that they're not reliable, but you are mistaken regarding this matter.~~ They are wholly reliable and independent sources. Furthermore, I have only removed the {{better}} template for entries that I have added such reliable sources to. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading is very selective. The Banner talk 16:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of my comment above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judges section restored

I have restored the judges section content (diff). The content is directly relevant, significant and of importance relative to the article's topic, and its omission reduces the quality of the article. The content is properly sourced with inline citations to reliable sources, and Wikipedia content is based primarily upon what reliable sources state and report. This supersedes the removal of the content that occurred with a subjective, one-word rationale of "irrelevant" (diff). It it were irrelevant, then reliable sources wouldn't report about it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adina, Armin P. (December 7, 2015). "2 in a row: Angelia wins Miss Earth title for PH". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved January 19, 2016.

Yep, and there is the protector again. Ever heard of "undue weight"? The Banner talk 22:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miss Earth 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150720064929/http://pageantsnews.com/paulina-brodd-is-miss-universe-sweden-2015/ to http://pageantsnews.com/paulina-brodd-is-miss-universe-sweden-2015/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miss Earth 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]