Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Lee Whyte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 09:06, 8 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Lee Whyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a particularly notable model. The article was originally created as an autobiography, which I deleted per WP:CSD#G11. After being challenged on my talk page, I have added the one source I can find to The Independent that passes WP:BLPSOURCES and brought the discussion here. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied per WP:A7. There's no credible claim of significance or importance in any of the versions. The Independent may be a reliable source, but its article doesn't have any tendency to show notability either. Bishonen | talk 13:00, 12 March 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.