Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeria Anastasia


 * 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 draftify‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  01:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Valeria Anastasia

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Requesting to move for draft as mainspace not submitted for review. 🔥 Yes I'mOnFire 🔥( ContainThis Ember? ) 15:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🔥 Yes I'mOnFire 🔥( ContainThis Ember? ) 15:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Mexico. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete can only find routine coverage. Article is promotional anyways. At the very least, a major cleanup would be necessary. Sungodtemple (talk &#8226; contribs) 21:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. AfC is not mandatory, so this isn't a valid deletion rationale. pburka (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Procedural keep, give the new page patrol time to do their job., in explanation, if you hadn't nominated this for AfD only a few hours after it was submitted to main-space, the new page patrol would have found it and sent it back to draft space. Articles may be submitted directly to main-space by their original authors, that's allowed, but we have a well-organised and careful mechanism to screen articles, see New_pages_patrol. But having said all that, this is at best a drastically-inadequately sourced article. Elemimele (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify as Elemimele suggested. Bruxton (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2023 (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.