Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janis Maria Wilson (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Tone 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Janis Maria Wilson
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Meets no Wikipedia guideline. Does however fail several policies, guidelines and essays, including but not limited to WP:GNG, WP:ENT, WP:CHURNALISM, WP:MILL, WP:PEACOCK. Since it was kept in 2015 I'll detail why, first regarding the claims, and then regarding the sources: Now for the sources: In addition, a Norwegian newspaper search for Janis Maria Wilson yields nothing further that can be of use. Janis M. Wilson gives 0 hits and Janis Wilson 1 false hit. Geschichte (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "She is known for portraying Miss Gudbrandsdalen" - false, it was a miniscule role which no-one noticed or remembers
 * "In 2006 she appeared in the Norwegian television series Shopaholic" - no notability of appearance
 * "was a finalist in the Miss Norway modeling contest" - not even the winners are considered automatically notable
 * "appeared in a commercial for Norwegian financial firm DNB ASA" - nowhere near notable
 * "on the cover of magazines such as Beauty Style, Lowrider, and Norwegian magazine Gatebil" - not notable unless the magazines wrote WP:SIGCOV about her
 * "one of 21 Norwegians competing for a chance to become a Playboy cover model" - one of 21? Lightyears away from notability
 * "Wilson was the alleged victim of personal attacks on two separate occasions in 2010" - highly trivial, fails WP:10YT, WP:IMPACT etc.
 * 1) Trivial local news about part-time jobs
 * 2) unreliable blog
 * 3) passing mention
 * 4) unreliable gossip
 * 5) unreliable website, not independent
 * 6) not in-depth, is about the trivial Playboy contest
 * 7) news about an attack without lasting significance whatsoever, see last bullet point above
 * 8) news about an attack without lasting significance whatsoever, see last bullet point above
 * 9) news about an attack without lasting significance whatsoever, see last bullet point above
 * 10) news about an attack without lasting significance whatsoever, see last bullet point above.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Did a quick Google search on her but couldn't find anything meaningful.  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  21:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Immediate delete per above. Again, searched but again, not meaningful, and just some social media posts. That's it. Severe  storm  28  01:27, 14 January 2022 (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.