Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Martin Duarte

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. postdlf (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Martin Duarte

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

Subject has appeared on a particular reality show and has since hired some sort of PR firm to edit on her behalf. The article was much worse than it is now, but now the only source on the page is to a couple of passing mentions of the subject, in particular her squabble with co-stars and someone who posted a scathing review of the show. As is evident from the log, I've also sent the pages on two other members of the cast for AFD for similar reasons, but these all appear to be differing paid editing firms at work here. —Ryulong (琉竜) 19:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only a single spurious claim to notability. Fails WP:GNG Murry1975 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage is not significant. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --John (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet WP:ENT --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the most appropriate program in which she's a cast member. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, definitely not significant coverage. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 17:24, 11 July 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.