Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katya Elise Henry

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. Mz7 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Katya Elise Henry

Katya Elise Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An atrociously promotional BLP without a single word of referenced text. For some inexplicable reason speedy deletion was disputed. With utterly useless content like Henry is a glamorous fitness model, who became popular through the social networking platforms. She has a big following because of her stunning physique and her ideas to maintain the figure. This gorgeous and hot model is equally popular on twitter, facebook, and Instagram amd potential sources like Bootylicious beach babe Katya Elise Henry reveals all in barely-there bikini and Katya Elise Henry is one of the sexiest models on Instagram, not to mention gossip column reports of her engagement to a minor pop star as regular and credible as those of Jennifer Aniston's many pregnancies, the likelihood of notability here is next to none, and barely a shred of the existing text would be salvageable. WP:TNT this mess. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. Promotional rubbish, unreferenced BLP. Neiltonks (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Unreferenced BLPs violate policy. This one is overtly promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete before I lose all will to live. "References" - official website (check), Facebook acct (check), Instagram acct (check), Twitter acct (check). (What - no LinkedIn page?!?!) No citation even close to WP:RS. Pure WP:PROMO. Narky Blert (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete The article is more like a blurb from a promotional website than a Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TNT. I think the subject is notable, but it's really hard to find reliable sources amidst all the unreliable ones. I'd be very happy to change my !vote if reliable sources are found. StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. 3.2 million Instagram followers seemed like it might be enough to qualify under WP:BIO Entertainers #2 (Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following), but a quick check of the top 100 Instagram profiles[1] shows that #100 has 14 million followers, so her 3.2 million followers are not enough to meet the "large fan base" standard yet. Google search of articles shows mentions in Cosmopolitan.com, Maxim.com, and Miamiherald.com, but none of those articles qualify as "substantial" coverage. No other indications of enough notability that I could find. Neil916 (Talk) 09:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. After removing a BLP violation regarding her father, I'm not sure there's anything redeemable left. being hip on Instagram is not a measure of celebrity nor of anything real for that matter. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Snow Delete Per everything already said. Non notable.★Trekker (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Snow delete blatant promotion and no evidence of notability. Lepricavark (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete No real sources or references. Subject doesn't seem that notable. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: Almost pure promotion. Montanabw^(talk) 11:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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.