Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renata Kuerten (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Kuerten

[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)

I tried to be a reasonable human being an A7 this unmitigated disaster, but nooo it was declined because “sufficient claims are present (though not sourced); there are sourced versions in other languages; the current article is not substantially identical to the one that was deleted in 2009”. Did you not read not sourced? This article has absolutely no sources. Even in the so-called translations, nothing of use. One “source” is a picture of her at a premiere yet when you go to the article she isn’t even mentioned. Another “source” is about her winning some citizen award, yet no mention of her actual career or work that she’s done. This is the bullshit I talk about. Trillfendi (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG - lacks any sources that establish her notability. Dan arndt (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:N is clear: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Using the links in this very AfD nomination, it's trivial to find dozens of hits on the subject in O Globo, Marie Claire, Folha de SP, etc. They seem to cover her every move, e.g. just from the last year or so: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. If anything the problem is too many sources to sort through, but some bio facts and career facts are quite easily verified, e.g. [7] [8]. Bakazaka (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not even one sentence of career can be created out of any of those links, because none actually talk about what work she’s done when they’re too focused on describing what her abs look like. But they always make sure to note her distant cousin is a tennis player. Trillfendi (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those statements are false. Bakazaka (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see; this article is now all of 5 discombobulated sentences. The first sentence is about her "humble beginnings" in Santa Catarina, the source of which describes her physical features and how she took a bus to São Paulo. The next vague sentence's source only manages to detail her height, weight, hair color, and the state of her abs, and her distant relative yet could actually be said about her modeling career? The fourth sentence is about her relationship, and the fifth is that her distant cousin is a tennis player. The only actual career related, single sentence is about being a tv presenter which in the source thereof is sandwiched in the last sentence between relationship status and Carnival trip plans. Trillfendi (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets basic WP:GNG. Google news has about 265 news references about her. ~Leny Tee55~ 10:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Woman is getting married" is not useful... Trillfendi (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage convinces me that she is a celebrity in Brazil, and is therefore suitable for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forgot to actually !vote. Obvious pass of WP:GNG, with extensive coverage in Brazilian RS over years. Certainly there is some fluff and puffery in the Google hits list, as there is for any celebrity. That doesn't erase the massive coverage she has received. Bakazaka (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (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.