Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chantel Zales

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. MBisanz ^talk 10:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chantel Zales[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unremarkable social media personality , Fails WP:NMODEL. Written by WP:COI editor , Probably a promotion exercise. Razer(talk) 20:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill model/actress. Lack of reliable source coverage to meet WP:NMODEL. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This tagging of the article is over-zealous, and no substantial case has been put forward as to why it is not notable, Razer says Unremarkable social media personality, but this is clearly not the case and they clearly haven't even read the sources referenced in the article, let alone the many others that are available with a cursory search. Despite the assertion above, Chantel Zales meets multiple elements of WP:NMODEL as demonstrated:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

[1], [2]. She has appeared on multiple notable magazines and payed roles in notable films.

2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

[3], [www.mandatory.com/fun/755205-hottest-girls-instagram-chantel-zales/amp].

many other sources are available with a cursory search. ~~

Delete The sourcing does not show a "cult" following and in no other way is the subject shown to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Sources in the article and elsewhere offer plenty of pictures, but no significant coverage of the person. Film roles are minor. — Newslinger talk 21:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are fleeting, tabloids, or non-RS. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 20:54, 16 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.