Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rain Elwood

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. Nakon 04:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rain Elwood[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and highly advertorial article about an actress and model with no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL. The strongest claim here, that she was the face of a luxury perfume brand, is supported by sources which verify the existence of said perfume brand but completely fail to contain any mention whatsoever of her being its face -- and her acting career consists entirely of commercials, music videos and minor character roles in film or television, which is not an NACTOR pass. And the sourcing here is heavily dependent on primary sources and press releases -- the only reliable sources in the bunch are the modelling articles that fail to name her. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to have an article just because they exist -- nothing here is a compelling pass of any notability criterion, and the sourcing isn't satisfying WP:GNG. In addition, this was created by an editor who's been blocked for WP:COI sockpuppetry around Ankit Love, who's named in this article as a direct colleague of Elwood's -- which means the creator has a COI with regard to her as well. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: based upon primarily roles in commercials, not a lot to meet NACTOR. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as quite easy to see there's nothing convincing for independent notability, sources are not convincing at all and are expected from these subjects, clearly nothing yet for an acceptable article overall. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is a very minor actress who doesn't meet WP:NACTOR as per the original nomination. There's a serious lack of independent, reliable sources too with most of the references in the article only mentioning her in passing. N4 (talk) 20:37, 2 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.