Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Baugher


 * 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. Oh the weather outside is frightful...Secret account 15:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Baugher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm finding it very hard to see this as anything other than a pice of WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT created or edited by a self declared COI editor who has declared that the subject of the article is her client (this diff) about a non notable self styled socialite. I've had a look into some of the referencing and I find it vague in the extreme. It has a current edit war taking place. Even if it is about a notable person, something I feel to be unlikely despite the welter of supposed references, the best solution looks like starting all over again. I was tempted to use Speedy Deletion, but felt a consensus might be a better approach. Fiddle  Faddle  13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fiddle Faddle has summed it up well. I was coming here to say pretty much the exact same things. "non notable self styled socialite" says it all; that's all this article is. Rockypedia (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment As suspected the article as it stood at nomination was a morass of primary sources, irrelevant additional detail to seek to establish notability where none existed or to scrape notability by inheritance. Much of this is flagged, tidied and removed. And even with all this the article remains to be fluff, flannel and puffery. Fiddle   Faddle  15:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Further inspection of the sources shows that some had no information at all. Those have been removed. The sole remaining references are Primary sources. Nothing indicates that the lady is notable. Fiddle   Faddle  21:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This seems an entirely straightforward lack of notability.--Talain (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now to Identical (film) per simply being TOO SOON for a separate article. Actress HAS been written of in reliable sources, but almost all are about her being in that film. And at a related AFD, and despite the original author's apparent COI, I believe THAT article has enough merit to meet WP:NF and be corrected and retained.  All that other needs is editorial attention from others... not deletion. Such gives us a suitable redirect target.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * delete does not appear to be a notable film Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Purely promotional article about non-notable individual. This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook or LinkedIn. Thomas.W   talk to me  10:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Paid advocacy. ```Buster Seven   Talk  18:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think the nominator has said it all. All sources are tagged as primary. This is clearly an attempt to create notability. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 09:16, 15 November 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.