Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Aldana


 * 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 keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Aldana

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

Simply put the article shows no evidence that the subject is notable. Notability - as layed out in WP:NN - is defined by a topic having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Of the sources provided in the article, only two look like they might provide significant coverage (not just trivial mentions), one is from a tabloid and the other from what appears to be a blog written based on the "facts" in the tabloid article. Neither tabloids or blogs are reliable sources and they shouldn't be used to source information about living people. The other trivial sources are no better being blogs, a youtube video of a chatshow(Vanessa's Real Lives) and two unreliable sites based on user generated content. These are actually used well in the article - they are not used as sources for any facts about the person only as sources to show that the sources themselves exist - however without any reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject or form a verifiable base for the article to be built on I don't think how they are used is relevent. I have no problem with the subject matter - there are likely hundreds of articles on Wikipedia for people noted only for the size of there chest - in this case it just does not appear that the sourcing exists to allow us to write a verifiable encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Guest9999 (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - The Guinness record doesn't seem to be confirmed due to the conflicting information found in those two People articles. The earlier one (in the external links) said that Rachel was set to be in the books. The second one (in the references) mentioned they found two bigger sets. If that's all her notability is based on. No... sorry. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep pending confirmation of the Guinness record. If confirmed, then that covers notability (yes I know not every record-holder is notable, but Aldana has additional notability as a model and public figure). Most of the cited links lead to sites that under Wikipedia's outdated rules are of questionable acceptability, so until Wikipedia opens up to allow blogs and fan-made references as legitimate websites better links are needed. If the record is confirmed bogus then under Wiki's current rules related to porn there's probably not enough to sustain notability. 23skidoo (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources are not reliable. I wondered if this could be redirected to an existing article on breast size as some kind of footnote on a woman with notably large breasts if it could be reliably established that she did have significantly large breasts - however, as Gigantomastia indicates, her breasts are not remarkable, and the growth of over-large breasts is a very serious medical condition rather than something to be smirked over in a tabloid newspaper.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment She does pass WP:PORNBIO as she has appeared in notable mainstream media, although I'm not sure if she falls within the scope of this guideline. Epbr123 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think WP:RS implies that tabloids are low-quality sources rather than unreliable sources. I therefore think she does just about pass WP:N through her coverage received. Epbr123 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Incredibly, incredibly weak keep Appears to have some semblance of notability. -- Shark face  217  03:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The one real notability claim that Rachel has is her Guinness World Record claim. That on its own could satisfy WP:N if verified, however the only news source I can find is The People. According to WP:RS all mainstream news sources are "welcomed", but it further goes on to state, "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." As this is a WP:BLP article and this claim of "largest breasts" is disputed, The People fails WP:RS since it's a tabloid paper with a dubious reputation. Tossing out the big boob record claim we don't have enough in this article to satisfy WP:N. --  At am a chat 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator, per the others above suggesting keep.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO, has WP:RS to back it up. Xihr (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - could you give an example of a reliable source, all I can find is tabloids, blogs and a youtube video of a non-notable chat show, none of which I believ qualify as reliable sources on which an encyclopaedia article can be based. Guest9999 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - article is in need of expansion although the basis of her notability does not. The mention of Guinness indicates independent third party coverage, even if the claim winds up being superseded. WP:PORNBIO seems no problem here. B.Wind (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the subject is notable on multiple fronts, so to speak, with ample sources available for verification purposes. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:02, 23 March 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.