Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Stejskalova


 * 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Natalie Stejskalova
I don't think that this article should be delete, because it's based on truth.
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. References in the article are made up of Youtube links, work profiles, dead links, and promotional blogs. Aust331 (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merge and Redirect to Sutal Dolls, which is the group to which the subject belongs. The only other claim to notability that conceivably could be made for the subject was winning that recent Miss Supertalent competition.  But, the article doesn't go into much detail about it and there doesn't appear to be enough to support a stand-alone article.  I note that the proposed redirect target has also been nominated for deletion.  If the target has not been kept, then my recommendation here is for Delete.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC) amended by NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as there's still nothing actually convincing for her own substantial notability. SwisterTwister   talk  23:04, 12 July 2016 (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.