Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fibi Love

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fibi Love[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT and the GNG; no nontrivial GNews/GBooks hits. Would-be model with no credits for notable employers/clients. PROD removed by IP who inserted advertising for similarly named porn performer/escort with no legit assertions of significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although now having a different IP (I do not want to have my name associated with adult stuff, for obvious reasons), it was me who changed the article adding links to this model's new website and a sedcard (easily to be found using google). This was definitely no advertising, I am in no way affiliated with this person or the website, and (obviously unlike Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) I did take a look at the contents of the links provided. As can be seen clearly, this website is not devoted to a “similarly named” person, it is devoted to the same person. Even if I accept that being of other ethnicity I might have problems to distinguish between two persons of her ethnicity, there are still too many obvious similarities between the girl depicted on the added website and the one in question to assume that they are different: eyes, eyebrows, nose, chin, “curves”, and above all a tattoo of a scorpion facing downwards on her back.

As far as “notability” is concerned, the fact that we are discussing her here and that there are people who obviously have lack of knowledge about her (and refuse to accept information available freely on the net to everyone) should be sufficient evidence for the need for the article. I cannot see any reason to question the significance of the media already mentioned in the article before my changes. I would not dare to comment on her fan base (judging from google results, it is probably reasonably large). Nevertheless I admit that meeting WP:ENT can be questioned (that is why I did not remove the notability notice, only the PROD which clearly stated that it should be removed in case of objections against deletion), and WP:PORNBIO is certainly not met (I would add: yet). I do not claim that my additions of primary sources prove any significance or that these sources can be considered reliable (although her real name from the sedcard can probably be trusted, why would anyone not using his/her birth name claim to have had yet another name?). 88.130.115.61 (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Credits are only a few non-notable magazine appearances. No secondary coverage except hiphopvideomodels.net, which does not meet WP:RS. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 20:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: few credits overall.--VictoriousGastain (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not reviewed or featured by independent media. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:07, 25 April 2011 (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.