Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhia Charles


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Rhia Charles

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Although there are no reliable sources provided I thought there was sufficient implicit notability expressed to make AfD a better choice for this biography of a sexworker. I can find no evidence that the cited book exists or was published, although since the book is said to consist of accumulated blog entries I cannot see that it would contribute to notability to any great extent. I was unable to locate Ms. Charles's name in the multiple pieces of a large thesis linked in the article; if there is something there to contribute to notability it will have to be searched for by someone with more time and interest than me. It seems to be the only piece of evidence that could conceivably document any notability and I suggest that whatever it might say, it is insufficient to meet the WP:GNG. The suggestion that she has written an article on copyright infringement is interesting but does not contribute to notability as a sexworker, which I gather is her primary claim to notability. (If this AfD results in the retention of the article I'll ask the closing admin to move the page to accord with Wikipedia's capitalization standards.) Ubelowme U Me  20:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article at current doesn't meet GNG, and I can't find any material that would make it pass GNG. I have also altered the article title to meet the style guidelines. Osarius     Talk 09:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2012 (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.