Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Zuelle


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Holly Zuelle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I declined this CSD and BLPPROD, but I remain unconvinced that this acress is notable. I cannot find enough reliable sources to establish notability (there is one on the page, but I question it's reliability and one is not enough anyway). As there are insufficient reliable sources and she does not meet any of the requirements at WP:ENT, I can't see that she is notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know it has been speedy deleted in the past with the same text? The user has then opened another account and recreated the article. I have opened a sock puppet investigation. --JetBlast (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt this unsourceable promotional thing that keeps getting recreated. Qworty (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt as above. If Ms Zuelle becomes notable then we can look at it again, but for now, bolt the door. Mabalu (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete no assertion of notability. SalHamton (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Not only is this person not taking 'no' for an answer, she's ruining it for everybody, under the principle that abuse of the rules leads to stricter rules.Listmeister (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2013 (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.