Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shanta Ronaldo


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Shanta Ronaldo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page is about a person whose sole notability comes from being a rather extreme fan of Christiano Ronaldo, for which he has received some minor, fleeting, media attention in the online "Weird" sections of a couple of newspapers. IMO nowhere near enough to satisfy notability guidelines, but ever-so-slightly more than what I feel comfortable CSDing.

Page attracts trolls and vandals like flies, too. (Though that's not a reason to delete, of course--else we may well delete every article dealing with bodily waste, sexuality, sexual acts, religion, politics, etc.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as non notable bloke, I'm inclined to say it fails BLP1E in that the only thing he's done is changed his looks but not entirely sure on that - I find it very very sad you'd wanna spend ££££s to look like someone .... just be happy with who you are!, Anyway fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Indeed, as per above. Non notable figure Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article was an absolute mess, and I pared back a lot of vandalism just now. I may have taken too much of the second paragraph, so commenters may want to peek at the history as well as the current version–or experienced editors familiar with the article may want to salvage any of the usable stuff out of there. —C.Fred (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yup, but then, 'absolute mess describes' around 80% of the versions in this article's history. As to the second, pruned, paragraph, for those who want to look at it: here. That's the only version of it that makes a vague attempt at sourcing, doesn't include the more blatant vandalism (because I had just cut it out) and doesn't contradict itself thrice over. Still problematic, non-neutral and bordering on vandalism at best, and the sole reason I didn't cut it there and then was that I was making this AfD (and removing problematic-but-sourced info, then open a discussion on the subject's lack of notability, would be a bit iffy, I suspect). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing of actually keeping. SwisterTwister   talk  05:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * delete. I think it should be a speedy delete! Postcard Cathy (talk) 03:01, 2 April 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.