Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikki Thomas
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 speedy delete. copyvio Closedmouth (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vikki Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
unsourced, reads like an official bio, blatant advertising Samuell Lift me up or put me down 16:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trim heavily and merge to List of glamour models. Reasoning: It's verifiable from reliable sources that she exists, so policy says we should WP:PRESERVE some mention of her on Wikipedia, but she's not notable enough for her own article. (When I say "Trim heavily", all that should be left is her name.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 18:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Purely a vanity page, does not meet notability guidelines, no refs except for personal sites. Infringes WP:SELFPUB.Parkerparked (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete copyvio; tagged as such. Large parts of the overly gushing biography are lifted word-for-word from her own webpage. Were there no copyvio I would say there are sufficient refs out there for an article, but not in the form that is there now, so my delete !vote is w/o prejudice against recreation. I42 (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.