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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suelyn Medeiros[edit]

Suelyn Medeiros (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)

Nothing at all actually convincing as this only focuses with the apparent sexual activities and my own searches have simply found links for this, there's still nothing actually confidently convincing; note this was deleted by PROD in September 2008 with questionability about notability also. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual content can be removed but for that, I request that she should get a chance.

Hi, She is model and actress. she is not involved in any kind of sexual activities. It was the case which happened in 2011, I added it because I found even Pamela Anderson profile had that. If this is not according to the wiki then I will remove this particular part.

Further, in 2008 when it was deleted she didn't have any notable. But Now she has worked in some many movies and film and she is the well known model. Please reconsidered it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanyna (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per having coverage to meet WP:BASIC, even if a little weak on WP:ENT. It seems WP:BEFORE may not have been followed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like the article, it's only controversies, even if she's best known for these, it's not convincing for a keepable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh.... like it or not, and even if only a stub article and she being only "known for controversies" is perfectly fine just so long as sources provide more-than-trivial information. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no personal point of view from me at all, it's simply the facts: The article's basis is with the listed controversies, not an actual acting career; it's risky keeping an article with this kind of information because anyone with any such controversies and sources could put this themselves too. Also, the listed sources and, frankly, the information show this is all simply gossip news. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be unaware of (or are simply ignoring) WP:BASIC specifically instructing that SNGs such as WP:ENT or WP:ACTOR or WP:MUSICIAN (etc) do not have to be met if WP:BASIC is itself met when it shares "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria". And as we have more-than-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, this person meets WP:BIO. Why she has continued coverage is far less pertinent than the simple fact that she does have continued coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepJust because someone's sextape got release that doesn't mean that they are involved in sex acts and the main point is that she is notable as per wikipedia article guidelines so she is clearly notable with notability eligibility.Drdvdc, —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep - some search results on her clothing line, her autobiography and her modelling suggest that she has a few different ventures going on. Notable enough. MurielMary (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2016 (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.