Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somaya Reece (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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Somaya Reece
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was properly deleted two years ago, but for some unfathomable reason the recreated article was restored after a speedy deletion despite there being no effort to address the issues that led to its deletion. Now, as then, this person simply does not pass WP:BIO or WP:N. She is a bit part actress who has a lot of friends on MySpace. That's it. If she ever actually lands some significant roles beyond "Harlot (uncredited)" and "Video Ho #2" then great, good for her and bring on the article. For now, she is not notable. Suggest that this be salted since obviously her fanboys will continue to re-create the article unless prevented. Otto4711 (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. "unfathomable" and "fanboys" aren't helping here. Editors who !vote "keep" are no more necessarily fanboys than editors who !vote "delete" are haters. The article was shortened and an additional source was referenced, and the only thing substantially the same as the previous version is the Infobox. I'm not sure why all the nominations for deletion have come from you, but I still don't see any reason for deletion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, I guess. You could make a case that this meets WP:N by virtue of the exclusive coverage in the OC Register article alone. . The exclusive coverage, as opposed to merely significant coverage, could make up for the fact that it is only one reliable, independent source and not multiple sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with that article is that it is entirely about her charitable work. Her career is only mentioned.  It might be used as in-depth coverage to support an article on her as a notable philanthropist.  Otherwise it contains no pertinent information. Drawn Some (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * charitable work can be as notable as a formal career--not that I really think this is in this particular case DGG (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete One has to be notable for something to be notable. She is not. It isn't even ONEVENT, its Zero Events., just minor acting roles. DGG (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The editor who created the newest incarnation of the article mentions on its Talk page that the notability is not from her acting roles but from her internet celebrity. I added another reference for that to the article just now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Now I see the claim "The 20 Hottest Women of the Web", I must admit that I deleted the article before as not addressing the last AfD, but it seems to have developed some more claims to notability that should not be discounted. Google has 630 unique hits, or 101000 non unique. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Do we really want every aspiring actress with a website who is easy on the eye and gets a couple of mentions in lads mags in WikiPedia? NBeale (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not really an argument for whether or not we want this one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notabe - mention on a random list does not notability make. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Article asserts the subject's lack of notability: "best known for her MySpace presence". Hairhorn (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hairhorn's reasoning. She simply isn't notable.  When significant in-depth coverage of her MySpace celebrity becomes available in reliable resources or when she gets multiple significant roles in notable films or plays or what-have-you then by all means let's reconsider her notability. Drawn Some (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2009 (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.