Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chanta Rose (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chanta Rose

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

Poorly sourced blp with no real claim to notability. Sourcing is a mix of primary and blogs. Just being in Playboy does not make notable. Publishing a book does not make notable. Being a member of a website does not make notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she is notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ITSNOTABLE Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the relevant guidelines for people in her fields of employment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete closest thing to a claim of notability is assertion of having posed for Playboy, which isn't sourced and wouldn't necessarily be instant notability even if true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Struggling to find good independent sources besides a passing Dan Savage mention of her book.Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of genuinely independent sourcing to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:34, 21 April 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.