Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriela Dias (actress)

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. Euryalus (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Dias (actress)[edit]

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

Advertorially-slanted WP:BLP of an "actress, model, television host, producer, businesswoman and humanitarian", with no strong or properly sourced indication of notability for any of those endeavours. The whole thing is written like a LinkedIn profile, and the sourcing is almost entirely of the primary variety with negligible reliable source coverage about her in media. None of her career activities are fields that confer an automatic inclusion freebie on a person just because she exists -- they all have specific markers of achievement that have to be attained, and specific volumes of reliable sourcing that have to be shown. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I added the NPOV box, and I agree with you about notability. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion below. Question: How much research into additional sourcing has anyone else done here? I can't say I am impressed, and I am concerned about sourcing, but there appears to be enough accomplishments in combination to (barely) meet GNG, but the above google search is pretty restrictive, I've gotten more with this search, including a swimwear line that adds another factor to her GNG assessment. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I agree with again with Bearcat, this article does not pass WP:GNG Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Banned sock. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article appears almost entirely sourced to actual videos of the person and I don't see any good secondary sources. --regentspark (comment) 14:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near being a notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing actually convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 13 July 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.