Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Iaschelcic

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. Geschichte (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Iaschelcic

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

pure PR, without a single source that is really reliable enough for BLP DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely not notable as a martial artist. Has never appeared in the WKF world rankings (which list hundreds in each division) and is not listed among the nearly 50,000 taekwondo fighters listed at taekwondodata.com. I'm less familiar with the notability criteria for models, though at first glance the coverage doesn't seem overwhelmingly convincing that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking more carefully, I believe she fails WP:ENTERTAINER so she is not notable as a model. I also don't believe the article's sources rise to the level and "significant and independent coverage" in multiple "reliable sources". Papaursa (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a model. her beauty titles are no where near anything remotely notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that the sourcing is insufficient for a BLP Spiderone 20:48, 8 December 2020 (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.