Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiara Belen (2nd nomination)

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. L Faraone 17:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiara Belen

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

Came upon this after a person claiming to be her publicist made this post at the help desk. The person then added the content we advised against posting, which I reverted (I have also blocked). After looking at the article and finding it sourced through blogs and other questionable sources, some of which I've removed, I began to look for reliable sources. All I have found are newspaper stories in which she is passingly mentioned as a player for UC Irvine's women's basketball team (News Archive search). A search with "next top model" returns nothing. There are many pages of web results, as is to be expected for a next top model contestant, but I have found nothing reliable to support an article as to notability or for verification. I propose deletion, then redirection to America's Next Top Model: College Edition and protection of the redirect.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a quick scan of List of America's Next Top Model contestants suggests that at some stage, someone decided that (in general) winners and runners-up of America's Next Top Model and a selected few others were considered notable. Most of the other names are unlinked so I assume they don't have articles (I've checked a couple and that seems to be the case). Is there any particular reason we would arbitrarily consider winners and runners-up to be notable? Winners I understand, but runners-up? On the basis of WP:GNG (per Fuhghettaboutit's analysis above) the subject would seem to not meet our inclusion criteria. I supposed I'm inclined to delete unless someone can provide some sort of explanation or consensus determination for the rationale behind the haves/have nots of that list. Stalwart111 04:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 12:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (rap) @ 12:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I just removed an entire section that had no references at all - a definite no-no per WP:BLP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no credible assertion of notability; just one step above Jeopardy! winners of the day. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 30 May 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.