Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Lynn Calhoun


 * 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. Cabayi (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Tommy Lynn Calhoun

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject is a model but fails to satisfy WP:NMODEL and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources discussing the subject are unreliable as they mostly lack editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. This source is the closest to remotely being reliable but isn’t sufficient in establishing notability. A before search turns up nothing concrete. Furthermore the first x to achieve y isn’t a yardstick used in determining notability. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as nommed. Had she not been tackled (how did she arrange that, I wonder?) and got some BLP1E coverage, there'd be nothing; now there's very close to nothing. Fails WP:GNG by a country mile. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NBIO  Rogermx (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing here is an "inherent" notability freebie that guarantees her inclusion in Wikipedia just because it's been asserted, but absolutely none of the sources are reliable ones for the purposes of getting her over WP:GNG for any of it. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2021 (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.