Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Varela

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dana Varela

The article doesn't make me think this person is notable; just heaps of unimportant stuff. jd || talk || 10:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Big Brother. Keep Thinking again, I think merging with Big Brother is a better option. She doens't deserve her "own" article, nonetheless some space on WP. I think her participation in Big Brother and an entry in IMDb makes her somewhat notable. Though in a bad shape right now, I think if someone was interested in adding images, other information such as details of her participation in BB, this could improve somewhat. —Jared Hunt September 25, 2006, 10:41 (UTC)
• Keep: Usually, I recommend deleting various articles of reality contestants who haven't won their shows or haven't done anything else notable. However, there is biographical information about Varela and what she's been up to since she was on Big Brother 4. People exploring Wikipedia can surely come to this page and find information about Varela. She surely has more biographical information in her wikipedia article than, say, Diane Henry and James Rhine (both of these contestants' articles are pretty much about their experiences on Big Brother). Because of the biographical information, I see this article having some value. A-Supreme 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless this section is expanded: "Dana Varela is involved with diabetes and leukemia organizations..." It is this which is setting her out from the other muppets. It needs to be referenced too. Apart from that, it's about her hobbies and interests. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn; the existence of content that one thinks may be useful to a couple of motivated fans is no reason to subvert WP:BIO. Eusebeus 13:42, 5 October 2006 (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.