Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawna Elizabeth

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna Elizabeth

[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)

The subject appears to have requested deletion [1]. The current references are interviews and blogs. I looked for better ones and didn't find anything useful. Cheers, gnu 57 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and because my research has also not found support for notability per WP:NMODEL/WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BASIC. In my review of the article and its sources, I made edits that included removal of what appears to be coatrack material, and the article still looks like a promotional vehicle for radio shows, magazines, other wrestlers, and events, because her roles are not described as significant, even when marginal sourcing is available to verify her participation. Beccaynr (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Worth pointing out that whether or not the subject requests deletion is irrelevant; we don't remove content on that basis. However, I do agree that this doesn't appear to pass GNG: it the article seems to mostly just be a fairly arbitrary rundown of her career. — Czello 09:18, 7 December 2021 (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.