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. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dita de Leon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress. Previous versions of the article included the subject's plans to start producing and had a section on 'becoming a celebrity.' Let's look at the references:

[1] This is a movie review on how to throw a party at the Playboy Mansion. I cannot find a mention of the subject here.
[2] IMDB, and credited as 'Girl at Party #1.
[3] same, credited as 'Model 2.
[4] same, credited as 'Newsroom Porn Star.
[5] Her blog.
[6] Her blog again.
More recently, she had a bit role in a web series called 'Bite Me.' She acted in three episodes. The series ran for two seasons but as a web series (YouTube, I think) this does not establish notability as an actress. Also, in performing a WP:BEFORE search, she was a subject of a news story for allegedly misusing AirBnB and annoying her neighbors, but she was not charged.

So in summary, the sources do not add up to making WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG. The recent news item does not contribute either to her notability, thus the nomination for deletion. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly fails our notability guidelines for actresses. Having bit parts in notable productions is not a sign of notability. The sourcing is no where near enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:46, 11 February 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.