Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Nenoiu (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 was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nenoiu[edit]

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

Delete for failing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. There are lots of footnotes to the article, but little in the way of actual coverage. Most simply say something like "Hair/Makeup: Anna Nenoiu". A few have Anna Nenoiu sharing a fashion "secret". The award mentioned was one of eleven silver medals that year and was shared by the team of four: "Ishi, Chris Hoy, Vanessa Taylor and Anna Nenoiu, GLOW, Fashion and Beauty". This article is slightly different from the one that was deleted in December 2011. --Bejnar (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The same reasons apply as in the last AfD discussion. In my opinion, this qualifies for speedy deeltion as a repost of an article deleted at a previous AfD, but experience indicates that some editors interpret that deletion criterion more narrowly than I do, so I am giving it the benefit of the doubt. It is also substantially promotional, putting it close to a speedy deletion for that reason. However, more fundamental is the lack of any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There has been an attempt to make the subject seem notable by inundating it with countless "references", but a check of those "references" reveals a string of largely promotional pages, most of whch barely mention Anna Nenoiu (many of them just give her name in credits, and don't have even one sentence about her). (Note: This is one of a number of articles which have been created and re-created by single-purpose accounts that have existed purely to post promotional articles about one PR company and its clients. The technique of posting dozens of trivial and unsuitable "references" to give the superficial appearance of notability to anyone who doesn't check them all is typical of experienced spammmers who have learnt from previous deletions.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete No real coverage of the person, just mentions that they did someone else makeup or sharing secrets as the previous !vote indicated. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The cited references certainly provide verification that she exists, but are not substantive enough coverage about her to deem her notable enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2014 (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.