Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniela de Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. NW (Talk) 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniela de Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Runner up in a beauty contest, now a model. No clear demonstration of notability; no significant RS coverage available. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep i have just added information about notable work she has done, including sources. -- Lancini87 (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Two model directories and one model forum don't exactly count as reliable sources. Cannot find any reliable sources to establish notability. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Weak Keep. The sources are somewhat weak but the high level modeling positions demonstrate notability.--TM 01:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Steamroller Assault. Notability ought to be judged on the significance of coverage and the reliability of the sources. The coverage here meets neither standard of "significant" or "reliable". The BLP is thus fatally unverifiable and should be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2010 (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.