Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia Stark

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. Jayron32 19:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Stark[edit]

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

Article subject has requested deletion via OTRS:2011103110015618 citing misinformation and BLP concerns Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree with a delete under most circumstances of a person requesting it of an article on themselves, but I don't seem to be able to actually view the evidence and circumstance of the request. I'm guessing it isn't an auto login from the wikipedia and commons projects? Dennis Brown (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only editors with OTRS access will be able to view the email correspondence. I have provided, with the subject's permission, only what information is necessary to initiate the AfD request on her behalf. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Then while I generally agree in principle with the nomination, I wouldn't !vote without knowing more, as I wouldn't have anything to contribute to the conversation. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person's notability is borderline at best, and the article seems to give undue weight to a past controversy. I don't think the average beauty pageant official is notable. The subject's request, submitted properly through OTRS, should be respected in cases like this, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to someone re-creating a WP:BLP compliant article from reliable sources. She may well scrape by WP:N on the basis of the sources cited, but unless someone is willing to take the time to carefully craft an appropriate article from all the sources, taking BLP and undue weight concerns into account, we are probably better off with nothing than a problematic stub. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2011 (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.