Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flo Jalin (second 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. Wizardman 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought this here to get a community consensus for this article. This gets complicated, so bear with me ;)
Flo Jalin was the subject of a previous AfD last year, and was deleted as a result. It has since been recreated. Yesterday I tagged it as Speedy (G4), the creator added a 'hangon' tag, and an admin passed by and Speedy-deleted as a copyvio. The article was promptly recreated a third time (initially as Flo jalin, which was then redirected to Flo Jalin). It was tagged again within minutes as Speedy (G4), but an uninvolved editor removed the tags asserting notability. I pointed out the copyvio to the creator, and most of the offending material was rewritten. Checking back today, I notice that all the copyvio stuff is back (see here for source). Even leaving aside the persistent copyvio, personally I'm not convinced that IGN interviews and a few swimsuit contest wins is enough to establish notability. Does this one need salting in future? EyeSereneTALK 08:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would an administrator mind telling us if the content of the page now is similar to the content that was deleted at the AfD? If so, it can be speedied. i said 00:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the copyvio material has been restored, the article ought to be deleted per WP:CSD#G12. GlassCobra 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - the reason I brought this here rather than tagging as speedy was to establish
- 1. Whether the article is notable enough to be worth keeping (with a rewrite to remove the copyvio stuff), or
- 2. If not, to get consensus for salting to prevent its persistent recreation
- EyeSereneTALK 08:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the text already was in the version deleted on December 23, 2006. Lupo 15:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the article can be speedied under CSD G4. i said 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or not? Would an administrator mind? — i said 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Most of the copyvio stuff has now been rewritten, and the article is looking better. Even so, I still don't think Flo meets WP:BIO. EyeSereneTALK 18:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or not? Would an administrator mind? — i said 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the article can be speedied under CSD G4. i said 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWeak Delete aside from the copyvio which would be a speedy, there are no reliable sources to establish notability. Her name appears here and there but nothing in which she is the main subject of the article in a reliable source. -- Whpq 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are interviews not independant of the subject, so they don't contribute to notability? - Peregrine Fisher 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yes, interviews would help establish notability. In this case, there is only the one interview in IGN, so I stand corrected. There is only the one source rather than multiple reliable sources. So my opinion is still delete. -- Whpq 13:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two interviews. - Peregrine Fisher 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, you're right. Both interviews are short pieces with IGN. I've changed my opinion from delete to weak delete. -- Whpq 18:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two interviews. - Peregrine Fisher 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yes, interviews would help establish notability. In this case, there is only the one interview in IGN, so I stand corrected. There is only the one source rather than multiple reliable sources. So my opinion is still delete. -- Whpq 13:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not an admin, but I'm the one who proposed the (successful) deletion of this entry last time. Whoever put it back up, it's essentially the same page, and this person is no more notable now than she was when the article was last deleted. TruthGal 16:23, 23 September 2007 (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.