Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clavinna Phan

:{{la|Clavinna Phan}} ([{{fullurl:Clavinna Phan|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clavinna Phan}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Prod (w/ prod2 support) removed w/o comment. Seems to fail WP:ENTERTAINER; no RS sources. Judging from the name of the SPA article creator and one of the bare refs, a promotional COI is involved here.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 04:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This, I admit, is my instinctive !vote for anyone who contests a prod with "DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE", but looking through all the usual indications for notability there's very little to go on. All the pages on Google are self-published sources or directories, there's no hits on Gnews, and most of the credits given on the page don't specify what it was for, and so by default must be assumed as trivial mentions. Miss Surrey is a reliable source, but as one of dozens of entrants is also trivial, so this leaves this appearance on Star Celeb (can't verify, link broken), which, at the very most, qualifies for a mention in an article on that programme. The bottom line is that simply having a job as a model does not get you a Wikipedia page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• 'Delete per Chris Neville-Smith's well articulated reasoning. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete One of the given references is a broken link, the two remaining are neither independent nor neutral Rirunmot (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:ENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- seems to be a NN model. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Almost warrants a speedy delete. Chris Neville-Smith states it best. Also, an extra on a show? That's someone who has NO speaking lines and basically is backdrop. Furthermore, she has NO film/tv credits on any substantial reliable film sources and most all sources support international projects. BioDetective2508 (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2009
• Delete. She is a nobody and this is a vanity page. -- K72ndst (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (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.