Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Gamba

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Gamba[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

PROD'd back in 2009, article is practically the same. A BEFORE turned up no evidence that would satisfy GNG or ANYBIO. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cheerleaders for professional sports teams are not default notable, and nothing else comes even close to notability. Wait, we deleted articles back in 2009? I thought that did not start until 2010 based on how much druk we have sitting around from before that year. OK, I really knew we deleted articles before 2010, I am just mocking how extremely rare it was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is more about FHM discontinuing their print publications than about the individual who is the topic of the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 13:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only tenuous claim to notability (FHM gig) is not cited. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 17:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No GNG claim. Kolma8 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2021 (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.