Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lacey Banghard (2nd nomination)

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Banghard

[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)

I am unsure the coverage is that great. She appears to mainly be famous for one appearance on big brother, notability that does not make. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question - The last AfD suggested that she seems to have been a favourite of The Sun's soft-porn coverage about a decade ago. Was that because of herb BB appearance or was there more to it? — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure why that is relevant, by inference if she is a page 3 girl the sun is not an RS for her, as they are her employers. As far as I can tell apart from being a page 3 girl (and winning the Suns competition to be one, not (as far as I am aware) a major award) she was not a winner of a celebrity big brother contest. None of which (as far as I know) makes here notable.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if there can be more RS found for her, this article needn't be deleted.Chantern15 (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
There's news of her here, I'll let fellow editors decide how much of this is tabloid or not, and whether or not worthy of inclusion.^[1]Chantern15 (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]

Most of the results of the raw Google dump are junk sources like WP:DAILYMAIL, The Mirror. The coverage from The Independent is all about the subject's eviction from Celebrity Big Brother, including her comments while focusing on the show. Most other hits are also about the eviction. Very thin on substance. • Gene93k (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I found, she was notable for being evicted from CBB, which in is one event. The rest all seems to be junk sources, she just does not seem all that notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.google.co.in/search?q=%22Lacey+Banghard%22&tbm=nws&ei=9TiEYdrVEM399QO7uqWABQ&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiapPLwvP_zAhXNfn0KHTtdCVA4ChDy0wN6BAgBEDs&biw=1488&bih=754&dpr=1.25

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable tabloid junk. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Little in the way of media coverage (outside of photos). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 7 November 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.

[1] ttps://www.google.co.in/search?q=%22Lacey+Banghard%22&tbm=nws&ei=9TiEYdrVEM399QO7uqWABQ&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiapPLwvP_zAhXNfn0KHTtdCVA4ChDy0wN6BAgBEDs&biw=1488&bih=754&dpr=1.25

[1]