Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen Wasike

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Wasike

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

Article full of puffery and promo about a pageant. But ms. Wasike scores just 494 hits op Google, including Wikipedia and social media. No proof of notability found, so fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 01:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, there's two reliable secondary sources. AllAfrica is presumably a small mention since the article is not about her. WestFM is better, but they helpfully tell us the article has only been viewed about 840 times, which is not a great sign of notability, looks like a local paper. I can't find much else. But even then there is the problem of one-event since winning this single contest appears all she is notable for. Finally, is winning a beauty contest on its own sufficient for notability.. probably not unless it was a very high profile contest, in which case WP:GNG would easily pass. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Their has been alot of print material on Ms Wasike and her role locally does this not count?If it doesnt kindly it is better to have the page off as the tag of 'subject to deletion' compromises her current role in society and current works.deefaith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deefaith (talk • contribs)

Comment - Offline newspaper articles would be acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2013 (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.