Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurina Fleure

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurina Fleure[edit]

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

Not notable reality show contestant. She appeared in a season of The Bachelor Australia and subsequently in I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here but doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER in my eyes. She didn't win either program, and hasn't done anything else of particular merit that warrants an article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator): the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER #1 as having a significant role in two different shows. She came third in Celebrity while in the Bachelor she was (according to the Daily Mail) ""one of the most popular contestants" She has more than 1000 hits on GNews, and even if most of them are tabloids it still indicates a significant impact well above that of the average reality show contestant. StAnselm (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How were they 'significant' roles? Why is she more notable than the winner or any other contestant in her season of The Bachelor, none of whom have articles. The depth of coverage about her is mostly trivial and almost exclusively related to events in either program. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep, or perhaps redirect to either The Bachelor Australia or I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here. The article as it stands only has one secondary source, so delete, but yes there is heaps of guff about her. So however meets GNG WP:NEXIST it seems just because she is a very little bit famous for being a very little bit famous. Her show appearances do not need to get her over the line. GNG does not need to have any remarkable events or achievements, just IRS to demonstrate notability and verifiability, and able to support a reasonably comprehensive article. I suggest the article creator turns the article into an in-depth multiply referenced article asap. As it stands the article's content does not demonstrate any notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I added some guff. St Anselm (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I suggest you aim to have a few multi-sentence paragraphs in each of sections such as Early life and education, and Adult [personal] life, and Film and media, and Fashion industry, etc. These if all referenced by reliable secondary sources (and not for example any social media, or self publish, or personal blogs, might win you the day). Aoziwe (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you misunderstand what AfD is all about - sources generally only have to exist, not be in the article. AfD is not for cleanup. St Anselm (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. But the author was active so why not have them get "their" ((not) OWN) article up to scratch and make it easier to keep? AfD is not about cleanup but it sure can be an incentive for (other) interested editors to get to work on an article. No harm in that surely? Aoziwe (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "guff" turns this into nothing more than WP:PSEUDO. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The guff does need to be selected as balanced, reliable, and secondary of course. Aoziwe (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete; one of those people famous for being famous. A Google search at first seems to pick up loads of coverage, but when you look into it I'm not sure that much of it is reliable; mainly gossip magazines and the celebrity inserts in newspapers, neither of which I think meet WP:RS. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:43, 23 January 2017 (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.