Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Waltrip


 * 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. ✗ plicit  13:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Kim Waltrip

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

There are three huge problems with this article: 1) The person doing most of the editing is doing so with the username of the article's subject. That's been handled, the account has been soft blocked, however that still leaves COI and Paid Editing related issues here unresolved; 2) if you look through the article's history you can see multiple allegations of copyright infringement going as far back as last year which were reverted but are still present in the article's history, and given the amount of times its worked its way back into the article I'd be of the mind to permanently remove it so it can not be reused as it were; 3) in its current form the article does not appear to satisfy requirements for WP:N or WP:GNG. Collectively, then, I feel it best to list the article here to allow the community to weigh in on these issues and decide whether we want to keep the article, scrap it, or execute a community sanctioned TNT maneuver. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is about the best I can find, there is one other article about her spouse dying, doesn't really help GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire. I see no evidence of notability, enduring impact and sources discussing companies lend no notability to the individual. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. Citations are either unreliable or little more than press blurbs. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  21:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'd found these issues so blatant that I started a thread at ANI October 11 to seek assistance parsing COI, copyright violations and promotional content. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 04:25, 14 October 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.