Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Fialho

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 January 11.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Fialho[edit]

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

Non-notable model. Article has no references. Images uploaded by user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sharayu05, who claims Barbara as a client. That user has also only edited this article and another article on a model named Monica Hansen. This implies a conflict of interest. Barbara is definitely pretty, but not notable. CitizenNeutral (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not think WP:COI would come into play as long as the article is written from WP:NPOV. Nominator makes a good point about being pretty, but unfortunately there is no notability guidelines for being pretty. I was hoping to find at least good WP:RS but all I found was images. As such, she simply falls short of WP:GNG. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:47, 18 June 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete - Appears to have news hits in a number of languages (translators needed!) - there are four American hits for someone else with the same name in the late 1970s, and it would appear not to be that unique a name as per Google Books so maybe not all the results are for her. The actual article is very poor, and WP:HOTTIE considerations aside, I think it probably best to delete and hopefully someone will properly recreate it in the future with better sourcing, if it exists. Mabalu (talk) 15:51, 27 June 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.