Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Uysiuseng

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. NW (Talk) 01:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Uysiuseng

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT , most third party coverage is passing mentions rather than in depth coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although not popular, the subject is still notable being a cast member on Lipgloss and Bud Brothers. She was also nominated for Best New TV Personality in 22nd PMPC Star Awards for Television link here. Regarding third-party coverage, most Philippine news sites do not have an efficient archive (sometimes even deleting articles a day after). Meanwhile, the external links should be deleted and citations should be placed. Starczamora (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Does not appear to meet minimum notability from verifiable reliably sourced third party sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having zero reliable sources (fails WP:V). In response to Starczamora, WP:V requires sources to be verifiable. Articles that "go poof" with no way of locating them should be disregarded - readers must be able to "check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". If articles are found in sources that are expected to disappear, there are archiving services that could be utilized. No prejudice against recreation if (but only if) reliable sources are included. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:52, 11 October 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.