Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriella Brum

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 02:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Brum[edit]

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

According to the article the subject was Miss World 1980 for 18 hours. The only source does not actually name the subject (seems to be for the next or two years later). Fansite speculation [1] does not help notability. There is some RS coverage out there but this seems like someone that had a couple days of fame for quitting and does not warrent an article, [2]. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article as it stands requires sourcing and expansion to be viable, but I find the idea that an unusual event like the sudden resignation makes her inherently less notable rather odd. Artw (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking length of rein equals barely held the position, but one might argue it gave her more notability for being the vanishing queen. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the last clause of Legacypac's last comment: "it gave her more notability for being the vanishing queen". Reliable sources are not that hard to find: [3], [4], [5], [6]. She was soon featured in Playboy (magazine) on the cover, with a headline of "Miss World for a Day: World-Class Photos of the Beauty Who Walked Out on the Title". (Playboy cover) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments and sources. Artw (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not a clean-up service or a request service for attention of an article. This is a clearly notable person with a bad article. Those two factors does not mean non-notable but the opposite. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Metropolitan90's sources. It's also extremely likely that there are additional German-language sources out there if anyone wanted to bother to look for them. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2015 (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.