Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chloe Khan

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Khan

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

Fails WP:ENT, sources provided are not reliable. After performing Google searches, it seems the only sources that cover her outside of her X-Factor performance (see WP:1E) found are social media and tabloids. Chrisw80 (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as currently questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per SwisterTwister although I can change my view if new sources are found, as well as clarification about her numerous names.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Apart from a bunch of tabloids and celebrity gossip, there doesn't appear to be enough coverage to assert that this person has met the guidelines for WP:GNG, and it looks pretty clear that this person does not meet WP:ENT. I did find some sources talking about her modeling (NSFW Warning: suggestive photos - [1], [2], [3], and [4]), but she does not look to meet WP:PORNBIO (for those who consider her modeling to be pornography). I don't believe that WP:1E applies in this particular case, but I agree that notability is not sufficient given my research and findings. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:00, 26 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.