Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Baugher

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.

Kelly Baugher

Kelly Baugher (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)

I'm finding it very hard to see this as anything other than a pice of

• Delete Fiddle Faddle has summed it up well. I was coming here to say pretty much the exact same things. "non notable self styled socialite" says it all; that's all this article is. Rockypedia (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As suspected the article as it stood at nomination was a morass of primary sources, irrelevant additional detail to seek to establish notability where none existed or to scrape notability by inheritance. Much of this is flagged, tidied and removed. And even with all this the article remains to be fluff, flannel and puffery. Fiddle Faddle 15:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Further inspection of the sources shows that some had no information at all. Those have been removed. The sole remaining references are Primary sources. Nothing indicates that the lady is notable. Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This seems an entirely straightforward lack of notability.--
  Talain (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect for now to
  WP:NF and be corrected and retained. All that other needs is editorial attention from others... not deletion. Such gives us a suitable redirect target. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete does not appear to be a notable film
  talk) 02:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Purely promotional article about non-notable individual. This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook or LinkedIn. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Paid advocacy. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think the nominator has said it all. All sources are tagged as primary. This is clearly an attempt to create notability. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2013 (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.