Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mila Shak

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mila Shak[edit]

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

Some people really love their pets and think they deserve a Wikipedia article. The main editor claims that they have no Conflict of Interest, but it is obvious that Beth Shak (and I'm not saying Ruferto is Beth Shak, merely that they are connected and that creates the COI) has been involved in creating this article. The main issue however is notability. In this case, that seems to rest on the claim that the dog is a model. That means nothing. I am aware that there are notable dogs. This isn't one of them. There are thousands of dogs that have been featured in advertising campaigns, and none of them are notable for being a model. Being "featured" in a magazine is not substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. The mention of her dog's instagram account getting hacked is trivial; a single sentence "Even her dog Mila’s Instagram was invaded and passwords were changed." A bit further down is a mention that "Shak’s mother’s cellphone account has also been compromised" Is Shak's mother now also notable? Of course not. The sources are Beth Shak herself, Mila's instagram account, Mila's website, a link to the landing page of http://www.hamptonspet.com/ with no identifying information an article about a burglary with one sentence about the dog's instagram account and an article about the dog's birthday party. The latest additions to this article were the Mila's twitter feed and her Instagram account. Pretending that dogs have twitter and instagram accounts is silly. Their owners write those posts, or hire a publicist. We have no reason to take this stuff seriously and should not accept this as encyclopedic content. Mduvekot (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Totally unencyclopedic vanity article. Rrachet (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice against re-creation. Possibly a speedy delete candidate. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:45, 9 July 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.