Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlena Britch


 * 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. North America1000 08:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Carlena Britch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a dancer, whose most substantive claim of notability is having appeared in music videos -- and who is sourced entirely to YouTube copies of said videos, with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about her in media shown at all. But a dancer gets into Wikipedia by being the subject of published coverage which satisfies WP:GNG, and does not gain an automatic entitlement to have a Wikipedia article just because user-generated video sharing or social networking sites verify that she exists. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, as Bearcat said, absolutely no coverage at all, linking to youtube videos does not count as adequate sourcing. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely non-notable. I notic ethat the article is tagged for cleanup; a cleanuop of this guff which can only have been written by a particularly dumb pr drone, would leave nothing.TheLongTone (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete That we have youtube clips of her dancing is not enough to pass any notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as by far nothing at all comprehensible to suggest an actual independently notable article, only puffed by names and articles of others. SwisterTwister   talk  07:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.