Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Villarreal

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 A Train^talk 14:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Villarreal[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Article appears to have been created and maintained promotionally; after the bad sources and uncited promotional text were cut a few weeks ago, there's not much evidence of passing WP:GNG here. Google shows very little, GNews has 0 hits for "Cindy Villareal", Google newspaper search shows passing mentions, Google Books shows her own books on cheerleading but not a lot third-party. David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've honestly PRODed, none of this comes close at all for actual independent notability and substance; all it contains are information parts about her career, from the sports to the publishing. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have except it's been PRODed once - David Gerard (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable cheerleader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article states that she is a former Miss Texas, which would at least provide a path to notability (I would think that there is a reasonable chance that a Miss Large State would get some coverage somewhere, and a decent number of the recent Miss Texases have articles). But she does not appear on that list, so even that avenue seems closed. Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apart from the fact this article lacks notability and references are weak, there is clear evidence of COI - if you look back in the history of the edits, there is one user who keeps removing the negatives from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B3A9:1300:E9FE:87D0:C87:BE55 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the history is heavily promotional, though the present cut-down version doesn't suffer it as much - David Gerard (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2016 (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.