Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Willma Gendb

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  speedy delete. Log entry: (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 03:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Willma Gendb (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: more at User talk:Iamwillow (both subject and author of page), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Willma Gendb) (thank)

Draft:Willma Gendb

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

completely irredeemable promo vanity spam with no notability and no hope of becoming an article in the near future. TAXIDICAE💰 16:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy G11 and tag for advert and COI. This needs to be completely rewritten to be neutral. Also, participating in Miss Canada doesn't guarantee notability. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was attempted CSD G11 but declined but I believe it still needs a complete rewrite and WP:TNT. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The decline is inexplicable. TAXIDICAE💰  16:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy per the inexplicable decline, and as the one who actually tagged it. There's nothing to be rescued from this vanity page; if this subject is notable in any way, shape or form (dubious proposition, at best), the page needs to be entirely rewritten. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G11 as a page that is "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia article", This is essentially a resume or portfolio. There is so much cruft in this that it would need a 100% rewrite, we don't include huge lists of extracurricular activities people excelled at in high school in biographies, nor huge lists of every advert/job they've ever modelled for, Nor huge lists of charity fashion events that they were involved in, we include what a summary of what has been published in reliable, secondary sources. There are some semi-decent references there so this person may be notable enough for an article (if the sources verify the content, I couldn't check all of them due to paywalls/subscriptions), but since there are no inline citations it's impossible to tell what has come out of each source. I think this is a textbook example of why trying to write a wikipedia autobiography is a poor idea. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also a duplicate of this on their userpage than needs dealing with, and that photo is not an "own work" photo as it stated in the description that it was taken by a professional photographer, and is almost certainly a copyvio. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a WP:TNT situation. This autobiography is relentlessly self-promotional. -- Whpq (talk) 23:40, 21 April 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.