Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica Arana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Copyright issues with images should probably be addressed at WP:CCI, WP:FFD or commons:Commons:Deletion requests Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Arana[edit]

Erica Arana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NMODEL. No significant coverage in secondary sources. No large fan base or following. Brycehughes (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no significant coverage of her in secondary sources, so the article fails WP:NMODEL. With Animalparty's comment in mind, this article seems nothing more then a promotional/fluff piece about the individual in question, where there is even a need to glorify the subjects time in high school. Such rubbish is not encyclopedic. The promotional/fluff nature of this article is further bolstered by the five glamorous pictures of her in this tiny article, and the links to her social media accounts. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2018 (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.