Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand Georgia

Miss Grand Georgia

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Miss Grand Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles related to Miss Grand International appears to be a massive WP:PROMO and Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation. This is one of them, and there are many others. The problem pattern, described below, applies to most of the articles related to Miss Grand International.

Many claims are unreferenced and cannot be corroborated by google searches. Unreferenced claims to not belong on Wikipedia, but problems go beyond that. The unreferenced claims indicate that people associated with the event (the ones who know the event from inside) are actually creating the articles. Covert promotion. Furthermore, many references DO NOT support the statements they purport to support. Oftentimes, the claim on Wikipedia is not featured in the reference in any form. There are many single-purpose accounts and that single purpose is to create promo articles related to Miss Grand International. Some, like User: InternationalPageant, are already banned. Permanently banned. Others aren’t and continue their Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles operation.

These articles chip at the quality and reliability of Wikipedia itself. WP:TNT should be the response. University of The Purple Unicorn (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is a discussion alleging that I have a conflict of interest with the pageant Here. However, I believe that any conclusion regarding this deletion request, as well as other articles I have created that were nominated by him/her, should be based on the sources I provide in each proposed article, not on such an allegation. Thomson Walt (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is part of a series of sloppy nominations made by University of The Purple Unicorn. Several of the claims made in the opening statement are not applicable to this article. For example, this article uses inline citations throughout, so the claim that there are unsourced statements isn't true. I was also unable to find any false citations in this article as claimed by the nominator in what appears to be a copy pasted nomination used in many nominations and done without thought or care for each individual article nominated. The article also contains no promotional next (ie zero peacock words, no puffery statements, etc.) so WP:PROMO doesn't appear applicable. Given that the nominator has not engaged at all with WP:SIGCOV or WP:ORGCRIT, and has not obviously even looked at the materials in this particular article (or they would have modified their opening nomination) I am voting keep. We shouldn't be encouraging article nominations done en masse that aren't done with due diligence (ie doing a WP:BEFORE, accurately summarizing the state of the article in the nomination, etc).4meter4 (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]