Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alodia Almira Gosiengfiao (2nd nomination)

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 wasSpeedy Delete, invoking WP:SNOW, as there have been no objections to deletion. Naconkantari 04:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alodia Almira Gosiengfiao[edit]

This article had already been deleted as per a previous AfD discussion, and although this new version of the article has a few new bits of information, it is virtually a recreation of the one that has been deleted. All previous problems mentioned in the previous AfD discussion still stand. - Jigokushoujo666 01:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on some web searches, it does not seem that an article can be made that meets notability or even verifiability standards, and the edit patterns for the article seems to indicate that the content contributors have no intentions to abide by them. The self-published sources provided do not meet the standard for reliable sources. Dancter 02:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete unless somebody can show that this has gone through deletion review it should be speedily deleted.Balloonman 02:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem notable. Oysterguitarist~Talk 02:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Article was deleted before and was brought back without WP:DRV as Balloonman has pointed out. I see no changes from the state of the article and/or the article's subject since last time that shows any acceptable level of notability for Wikipedia's standards. Therefore, I must vote delete for pretty much the same reasons I voted delete last AFD. Shrumster 06:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation, even if there are some minor changes it's still basically the same article on the same subject. If anybody really thinks a good article is possible, it can be sent to DRV, but frankly it wouldn't stand a chance whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not exactly sure how to comment on this, but I will have to go with WP:BLP. Not much of the information is verifiable through reliable third-party sources. Instead, the bulk of it cites a primary source, her deviantART account. This gives the article a vanity feeling. Also the only third-party source for the entire article is a blog entry for the Maxim offer. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 02:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now that Farix has mentioned it, I took a closer look at the other blog mentioned, and it turns out that it's just basically repeating whatever is mentioned in the subject's DeviantArt blog. Definitely not a reliable source. - Jigokushoujo666 05:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTE Snarfies 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one English news result. Please dont snowball this; give locals a chance to look for local RS. John Vandenberg 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was deleted already? Delete then, and still delete now. --Howard the Duck 03:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. WTF?!?!? I nominated this the first time for exactly the same reasons the others have mentioned. I stand by for the same reasons I nominated this the first time around, and unless this person hits the mainstream, my stance will be unlikely to be changes. --- Tito Pao 03:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request: If this is deleted, might as well delete the images that come along with this article. And please, get rid of this already as per WP:SNOW.--Howard the Duck 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject of the article is not notable -- WP:NOTE. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ ^Talk 08:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Why is this relevant to Wikipedia? --Potato dude42 21:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oysterguitarist (Duane543 04:01, 24 June 2007 (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.