Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elise Adan

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. Nakon 02:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Adan[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NMODEL. The sources provided consist of a mere mention in runway commentary, a promotional blurb and the web page of a company she owns. All I could find in searches are social media mentions and a bare mention about being an investor in a large building project. Jbh ^Talk 13:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although African fashion is not well-represented on Wikipedia, and I always make a little extra effort when double-checking nominations from that subject area, this person simply does not have the independent coverage required to demonstrate her notability. I also found [1] but again, a very slight passing mention, and no other mentions for her or Tulia on that news site. OK, she exists and she does fashion collections, but unfortunately at this point, there's barely anything on which to build a convincing keep case. Mabalu (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself tagged this, I would've PRODed too but I see it would've likely been removed too anyway. Nothing at all and at least AfD will now add locks to this if it's restarted too soon. Simply nothing at all currently convincing for notability and this frankly would've been best deleted at PROD for its obvious explanations. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was DePRODed by the author [2]. PROD is all but useless except to put a clock on an article created by a drive-by author, otherwise it is just prod-deprod-afd. Jbh ^Talk 19:42, 22 May 2016 (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.