Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Francesca

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. joe decker ^talk 22:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Francesca[edit]

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

Fails General notability. The article has stood for months with only primary sources and Google news sources run dry. w^L^{<speak·check>} 02:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Appears to be mostly a internet personality, fails NACTOR. That said, if others care to improve sourcing, I will reconsider my position. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She seems to be popular if I go by the 400,000 likes on her Facebook page. But popularity is not the same as notability. Almost all coverage of her exists in self published sources. I could not find a single reliable secondary source which covered the subject in detail. Delete for now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- She also has a quarter of a million Youtube subscribers, 28 thousand Twitter followers, and 95.4 thousand followers on Instagram. That's a lot. --Marpacheco (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find several secondary sources concerning the subject here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I admit, I'm not sure if these sources are that reliable or if they are enough, and that is the question I put to you all. I say we keep the page up for now, while we determine if these secondary sources will work. She may not seem notable at the moment, but I'm sure soon enough she will be. And then this won't be a problem. --Marpacheco (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, except for the playboy.com link (which I cannot access as it is banned in my country), the others are not reliable. Also, this article has been up for 4 years now. If she isn't notable by now, I don't see a need to keep this article in the hope that she will become notable. If she indeed does become notable, it can be recreated at that time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She just doesn't seem notable, unfortunately. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has appeared in supporting roles for notable media, such as Louie, The Daily Show, and the movie, Muck. This exposes her to a VERY high number of people outside of her own internet following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.175.225 (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As just mentioned, supporting roles only. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Supporting roles only" doesn't show lack of notability. In fact, notable awards and honors have been given out for supporting roles. Vic Dibitetto's article was once nominated for deletion. However, the decision was 'keep" BECAUSE of his supporting roles in mainstream media. "Supporting roles only" is not a valid defense for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.175.225 (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm happening to find this and my searches have simply found nothing better at all, nothing minimally better and the article, regardless of any apparently notable names and other contents, show nothing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 16 June 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.