Deletion of Anna Nenoiu (2nd nomination)

Comment: per nom. The cited references certainly provide |verification that she ''exists'', but are ''not'' substantive enough coverage ''about'' her to deem her |notable enough for an article in an ''encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: The same reasons apply as in the last AfD discussion. In my opinion, this qualifies for speedy deeltion as a repost of an article deleted at a previous AfD, but experience indicates that some editors interpret that deletion criterion more narrowly than I do, so I am giving it the benefit of the doubt. It is also substantially promotional, putting it close to a speedy deletion for that reason. However, more fundamental is the lack of any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There has been an attempt to make the subject seem notable by |inundating it with countless "references", but a check of those "references" reveals a string of largely promotional pages, most of whch barely mention Anna Nenoiu (many of them just give her name in credits, and don't have even one sentence about her). ('''Note:''' This is one of a number of articles which have been created and re-created by single-purpose accounts that have existed purely to post promotional articles about one PR company and its clients. The technique of posting dozens of trivial and unsuitable "references" to give the superficial appearance of notability to anyone who doesn't check them all is typical of experienced spammmers who have learnt from previous deletions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:BOMBARDMENT)