Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Elizabeth Hallam

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. KTC (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Elizabeth Hallam

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

utterly trivial accomplishments; speedy declined, on the basis that "the claims to win 2 contests ins a claim of significance" -- I think otherwise, if the contents are as insignificant as this. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Kommentar - Considering that your account is a suspected Sock Puppet [1] your comments have no honest merit. See [2] - London2019

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than this and this. Pinging Davey2010 and Reddogsix. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you also Google all the variations of her name? Did you also Google her Married Hindu Name? Did you also Google her name with her Husband's Name? Did you read any of the newspaper articles and watch any of the video interviews on her? - London2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by London2019 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As lovely as she looks we can't keep based on looks!, I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 12:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Define Evidence? Multiple references have been included. This page is a work in progress. It is not her complete biography or a complete list of all her accomplishments. I am conducting extensive research to verify all information before it is published. There are interview claims (and pictures) that Hallam was on the TV shows "Top Gear" and "Peaky Blinders" which I have not been able to verify yet. Which is why they are not listed. -London2019

Do Not Delete - Multiple sources, references and links have been added and her biography is being updated regularly. My understanding is that Wikipedia is an evolving source note an actual completed work. If it was a completed work we would not need these over zealous moderators. You do not get to decide what part of a person's biography is significant. It all adds to the story. This person travels the entire world raising awareness and cash for the Charities that she is an Ambassador for. She is just not someone Beauty Queen that these ignorant people have typed cast her to be. I've seen plenty of pages, on Wikipedia, for people that have done nothing. This is an online source of information, period. This is not an application for a Visa. Grow up! -London2019

Comment - First, I would suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL before you again comment in this forum. Additionally, do you really think calling people names will help your cause? Secondly and most importantly, the article fails to establish notability for the individual. Traveling to raise money may or may not be significant in her and other people's lives; however, information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. I highly suggest you read notability and WP:BIO. There just does not seem to be adequate independent support for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only person suggesting this page be deleted is you and all your multiple fake accounts. I have provided multiple references, for all the information listed, on Hallam's page. Try reading the actual references instead of going out of your way to delete this page that meets the qualifications for inclusion. -London2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by London2019 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, I strongly suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL. If you feel DGG (an admin with over 180,000 edits), SwisterTwister (with over 64,000 edits), Davey (with over 46,000 edits) and me (with over 34,000 edits) are the same person feel free to open an investigation per the instructions in WP:SPI. Don't be surprised if investigation is closed rather quickly. Some times sockpuppets do show up in article, as evidenced in the case of DangerDogWest, but their editing an article is no reason to suggest everyone else is a sock.

BTW - Please sign your name by including 4 tildes at the end of your message. (~~~~) reddogsix (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Person not notable. Fails WP:ENT. Possible COI as well. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches do not show her meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 3 November 2015 (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.