Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Deanna


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kim Deanna

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

unsourced, although there is an assertion of notability, I am unable to verify it, as I cannot find coverage in reliable sources. — Snigbrook 19:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Google has nearly 2 million hits but as you say none of them seem to be from any reliable sources. Someone needs to re-write the article citing some independent sources otherwise it will have to be deleted. However i would argue against deletion straight away because of the abundense of material avaliable (although i can't be bothered to read through it all and pick out the important ones.  Greatestrowerever  Talk Page  19:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Actually, that's not an accurate assessment of Google hits. If you limit your search to the precise name "Kim Deanna" and then omit all the pages that are basically self-promotion portals (-myspace -youtube -friendster -facebook -forum -blogspot -wikipedia -video -blog) and Deanna Durbin (-durbin), you get 370 hits, almost all of which have nothing to do with Kim Deanna at all. At present, this person's notability can't be established. Wildhartlivie (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.   —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. She's apparently a "popular Eurasian" and her Korean name gets 85 google news hits  Juzhong (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced BLP of someone of marginal notability. RMHED (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2008 (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.