Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonda Rydell


 * 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. Tone 15:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Rhonda Rydell

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:ENT and the GNG. Non-notable model/actress whose most significant achievements are three bit/unbilled roles and a single picture in Playboy. Attained brief, minimal BLP1E-type press coverage as the onetime girlfriend of a moderately notorious con man, but not significant enough to merit more than the briefest mention in the con man's own article (so redirect after deletion would be appropriate). Only one non-imdb reference. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete 3 minor roles and a Dateline interview fails WP:ENT. Being part of 1998 Playboy pictorial "The Babes Of Baywatch" does not impart any notability, and it has been decided elsewhere that being a Playboy Playmate is not in itself notable. Further, I can find no verifiability of article's claim that she is an "Independent TV/Movie Producer", and so she fails WP:FILMMAKER. She has some sourcability and mention for her being one of many falling for con man Christophe Rocancourt, which could, at most, be mentioned in his article, but there is no merit in listing all those that fell for this con man. Pretty much, if it were not for involvement with Rocancourt, she would never have received coverage by media.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:04, 1 November 2011 (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.