Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Paulshock

Pamela Paulshock

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, no large fan base or cult following, no significant improvements to her field (neither wrestling nor wrestling commenting), only one minor award, no biographical sources describing her life and achievements. Apart from the sources already in the article, the only mentions in google books are passing mentions[1] and one page 3 girl photo[2]. Enric Naval (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable BLP. Viridae ^Talk 02:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 02:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete insufficient reliable sources of the depth required to begin allowing for the creation of an appropriate and neutral blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cutno (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN Daa89563 (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a hard time finding the current references for the article as it was. I only added them to help cut down the number of unreferenced BLPs. JuneGloom07 Talk? 13:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. How are we doing with unreferenced BLPs, did anyone take a snapshot? JBsupreme (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is tough, I think she is notable enough to have an article based on her role in WCW, I will do some searching (and hope others do to) to show notability. TJ Spyke 21:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep well referenced article, people magazine and the sun wrote about her. Ikip 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I contacted editors who had edited this page before. Ikip 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the Talk:World_Championship_Wrestling page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
We're back to disagreeing Ikip! Being written about by The Sun is not really an achievement. Of the reliable sources in the article, all are but trivial, passing references. That said, I'd be happy to be proven wrong and if something (anything) decent can be found, I'd be happy to see this userfied or incubated. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply since she was an interviewer in WCW and never had a match. Nikki♥311 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as IAR to WP:ENT, this actor/model/arm-candy celebrity is simply one role/scandal/famous marriage away from meeting ENT and likely already passes GNG for a public career spanning at least a decade. I found multiple trivial mentions in online publications and likely plenty more exist. The only concern I have is that as is the article feels like the BLP of someone who's career has ebbed so no one would object of the subject asked for it to be deleted. It's borderline but something could easily turn up to indicate notability. -- Banjeboi 09:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh... I consider Nikki311 an expert in this field, if she says this article should be deleted you can bet your bottom dollar it will be. JBsupreme (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't even read that !vote and simply offered my opinion which I stand by. No one can prove sources don't exist simply do a basic search to see what is available online. I wasn't impressed by the quality but there is enough "bits" between different career to sweep together. Having said that I see no reason to fight to keep as the overall sense I get is that the career is waning at best so this particular BLP serves to document a person's declining career so I feel WP:Harm plays a part. If a big 'ol article on her was produced that effective covered her then it goes from borderline to probably. Keep in mind as well this is, after all, a BLP and just maybe things change. Whatever decision is made now should at least be seen in the light of available information. -- Banjeboi 11:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So 1) you didn't read the discussion prior to !voting; and 2) you don't understand deletion policy, in that you think "bits between different career(s) to sweep together" is enough, as far as sourcing goes. It's not. Unit Anode 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources contain nothing but passing mentions of this woman, which is simply not enough. Unit Anode 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]