Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sondra Barker

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sondra Barker

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

Non-notable model. References do not provide sufficient evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO Tassedethe (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete - This is a tough one. It took a good amount of work to find those references. Tassedethe is correct in that none of the references provide sufficient evidence of notability. You can find a few of her photos and she is hot, but I have yet to find good evidence of notability. As it stands, I am leaning towards delete, but I will do some more looking before the AfD ends. Dethlock99 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article on non-notable model. Dethlock99 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Four "sources" have been added to the article and I think it makes the subject Less notable than before! Dethlock99 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 April 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) 00:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, sources are very weak. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:08, 15 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.