Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Marie Cordeiro


 * 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. There two distinct issues here. Does the subject meet WP:SCHOLAR and does she meet WP:NMODEL. Meeting either would be enough. There seems to be clean consensus that she does not meet WP:SCHOLAR. WP:NMODEL is murkier. The arguments boil down to Does participating in a beauty contest make you notable?. Although a majority of the participants feel the answer to that is yes, I don't see any policy-based supporting arguments for that. Obviously, either her modeling or academic career could develop to the point where she becomes notable in the future; if that happens, it's easy enough to recreate.

On a minor note, I agree with Michael Scott Cuthbert that it was a stretch to put this on PROD.

-- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheryl Marie Cordeiro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although this biography of a living person cites one independent source, the other sources are by Cordeiro or web pages of places she has worked. The article fails WP:PROF, as Cordeiro is a postgrad researcher with a handful of publications plus a blog. Note, though, that the independent source relates to a different possible basis for notability: she was a contestant in the Miss Universe beauty pageant.

I proposed the article for deletion on 7 February with essentially the same rationale. PROD was contested by an anonymous user who commented, "She was born on valentine's day. Deleting the article would generate dozens of red links." There is no birth date in the article. There are currently eight incoming links, plus a redirect from a misspelling. Cnilep (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - per the fact that she represented her country in Miss Universe 1999 which is sourced and notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did consider that fact, but it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NMODEL (multiple significant roles, prolific contributions, or a cult following) or WP:ANYBIO (significant awards or honors, or a widely recognized contribution to some field). Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There appear to be no pages for most of the contestants listed at Miss Universe 1999. Cnilep (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - apart from the participation in Miss Universe I think her total output as an academic (see ) ought to make her notable as well. /FredrikT (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You fail to understand Wikipedia policy WP:Prof. Getting degrees and publishing stuff (although there is little here) does not conger notability. It is having the stuff recognized by others that does and there is none. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Strong delete - not at all notable under WP:SCHOLAR - an RF is not senior enough to be notable and there are no other qualifying notable research outputs from her career so far. We can't give a page to every postdoc. Not notable under WP:NMODEL either. Leondz (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this is a speedy delete criterion. delete is definitely possible (though I disagree, see below), but there is certainly an assertion of notability, which is the only thing necessary to avoid speedy deletion; what speedy deletion rationale is being invoked here? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Should have been strong Leondz (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Just because we have not filled out a potential category does not mean it is not a notability requirement. Being a participant in a major, international beauty pageant, like Miss Universe, is generally accepted as making someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence for this claim. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep on participation in Miss Universe competition grounds (an international, notable, and verifiable accomplishment). Would not pass WP:PROF currently, but only one relevant guideline needs to be passed. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Failing to meet two sets of criteria is no better than failing to meet one (and this article is really quite far from any of the requirements WP:PROF) Leondz (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * However since she meets other requirments, the Prof issue does not apply. Prof rules do not mean we delete articles on non-notable professors who are notable for other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * She doesn't meet other requirements. Selection for entry to Miss Universe alone isn't enough (see Cnilep's example above) Leondz (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * She was Miss Singapore, that is what makes her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not enough on it's own. Which is why, for example, the Miss Singapore page has a "notable winners" section: for winners who have held this title and done otherwise notable things. Leondz (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear fail of WP:Prof. Taking part in a beauty contest is WP:BLP1E and does not satisfy WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2014 (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.