Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glamorous Monique

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. Cirt (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glamorous Monique

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

Speedy deleted as a G10: unsourced (or in this case very poorly sourced) negative or contentious WP:BLP). This was objected to on my talk page because the homepage of the subject did describe her as the article did. I still believe a G10 is defendable, but an AfD will do as well. Apart from the problems of verifying that Governemt worker Monique Allen is really Glamorous Monique or not, the article utterly fails WP:BIO anyway: No Google News sources[1] General web sources are blogs, myspace, facebook, ..., but no apparent reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wouldn't expect this to get any Gnews hits and as a club/music fixture it would really be limited, but I'll have a look to see what hope may exist. That there is a documentary about her , "veil of invisibility", do in 2010 means this article may simply be too new. -- Banjeboi 02:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the strongest source but in this interview she is identified as Monique Allen.
- Another interview here.
- The name may be part of the issue but as of yet I can't find much to support keeping this. There is little doubt that she has been discussed repeatedly as a club fixture but likely those mentions are old enough as to never made it online. Likewise I have no problem believing that she may be in at least a few or perhaps many documentaries specifically on T-girls for which she seemingly would be one of the most visible at the time. However I'm not finding any evidence of this coverage ergo it must be a delete until such sources are readily apparent. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 07:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability cannot be established by verifiable sources. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; Google search turns up only facebook, myspace, and Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[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.