Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catrina Raiford


 * 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 14:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Catrina Raiford

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete lots of fluff sourcing, but the very tone with statements like "a regular at the gym" is just plain not encyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep There's quite a lot of news articles from reputable sources about her online, so I think she's just about notable. The article is in a pretty poor shape, admittedly, but that's not a good reason for complete removal, and this could be fairly easily made an acceptable stub. BubbleEngineer (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Some parts of the article need to be rewritten to fit the encyclopedic style, but this is not a reason it itself to delete the article. Emass100 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The coverage is from tabloids. These are not reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: as above. Wpgbrown (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: But the article needs substantial improvement. Agree 'regular at the gym' is not encyclopedic.Terristevens (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep terrible article at the moment, but as others have stated, "needs improvement" is not a reason to delete. I see a lot of coverage, and it's spread over a couple of years. Amsgearing (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The coverage is from tabloids. These are not reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that some tabloids may be unreliable, but just because a newspaper is a tabloid doesn't automatically make it unreliable. Amsgearing (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2018 (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.