Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Wheat (3rd 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. JForget 03:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Natasha Wheat
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject is not notable. Rees11 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, especially after having a look at the lack of Google News archives hits. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The article has been deleted twice before.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 18:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As I noted on the article talk page, the references provided are essentially puffery to give the appearance of notability without imparting any true substance. The individual does not meet any of the notability criteria for inclusion as outlined at WP:N. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 18:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Shouldn't this be a speedy as a recreation of deleted content. Notability is still not established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought too, and I started with a speedy G4. It was declined because the recreated article isn't identical to the deleted one. I don't quite understand that. For one thing, there is no way to see the deleted article, so it's impossible to tell if it's identical. For another, it seems cumbersome to keep going to AfD over and over on the same article. But I don't make the rules, so here we are. Again. Rees11 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - no significant coverage, hence no article. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel&#39;s Demons (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't speak for the declining administrator, but I can see the article when it was most recently deleted and I agree that they weren't identical. The last version to be deleted had no attempt at references at all, while this current version has 9 of them. But the presence of references doesn't do anything to establish notability, it's whether or not those references show in-depth coverage to establish notability, and both the quality of references and depth of coverage are lacking in my opinion. --  At am a  頭 18:03, 12 January 2010 (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.