Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrystal Rose

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. Rlendog (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrystal Rose[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (person). Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 09:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've improved the article somewhat, paring the biography section down to bare essentials since none of it is properly sourced. The only things I can ultimately find are some brief one-off mentions of her being an Oprah clone in some books [1] [2], but nothing really in-depth enough to show notability. I'm persuadable if anyone can show sources that would be reliable, but there just aren't any out there that I could find. Something to note is that someone added that she made a pornographic film (among other recent vandalism), which I haven't found any sourcing or justification for, so this should be slightly monitored for vandalism if kept. The sole source on this article mentions her so briefly that it wouldn't show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable and rather promotional. I consider this almost a A7 for having no genuine claim to importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with DGG, it's almost an A7 case (No notability asserted), but for the mention of the subject's appearance on Dragon's Den (which seems to be a claim of notability, such as it is). Totally insufficient, of course, but there it is. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:19, 10 October 2012 (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.