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 per unanimity among respondents.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danita Angell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Model with no significant coverage, therefore failing the GNG; no indication subject meets any specialized guideline. No likelihood of expansion of article beyond stub, only 5 GNews hits, mostly photo captions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By all accounts, ten years ago she was at the top of the profession. She was chosen by Victoria's Secret to be one of their annual fashion show models. As such her press would be in fashion magazines and not in the commonly used media outlets that AFDers check. She has been a covergirl for elite fashion magazines such as Vogue Italia. She was an elite model and notability is not temporary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I could cite numerous modelling mentions for appearances in things like The New York Times magazine. This would be analogous to documenting the an NFL offensive lineman is on the team although no interesting articles are written about him. His notability would stem from being an elite athlete. Hers stems from having been an elite supermodel for a brief period. She reached the highest level in her profession and is notable for that reason alone.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I could cite" isn't a legitimate argument; if you can cite the evidence, you should. And the claim that appearing once in a Victoria's Secret fashion show and appearing on one magazine cover constitutes "the highest level in her profession" is unsupported nonsense -- especially since the Victoria's Secret claim isn't even supported by the cited reference. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point. I considered noting that she appeared in the NYT magazine during the ((prod)), but considered that information unencyclopedic. Also, one year in the VS fashion show is the highest level in her field. It would be like talking analogous to someone who was on an NFL roster for one year in many regards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H.W. does have a point. The subject's participation in the VSFS is not supported by the FMD link. Is there anything else to show that she was in it?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: The article doesn't demonstrate meeting coverage criteria (hence the "weak" part), but Tony makes a good analogy with the offensive linemen—they get a free pass for having reached the highest level of a notable profession, and having been in the VSFS (easily the most-watched fashion shows ever put on) is enough for me to extend the same free pass, as much as I hate doing that.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with the other commenters that she seems to have achieved notability in the 1990s. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2009 (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.