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. → Call me Hahc21 03:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Williams (English model)[edit]

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

Non-notable model, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. No indication of any significance whatsoever and the only references provided are to Zoo Magazine's website. Tiller54 (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources demonstrating notability, although googling seems to pose a challenge because there appears to be another model named Rachel Williams who had a lot of success in the early 90's. If sources can be improved, I'll reconsider. Bali88 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought the same thing initially, that this was an insignificant win in an insignificant magazine, but I believe my follow-up research led me to believe that Zoo wasn't just a UK mag, that there was a significant global membership. I dunno if that's enough to warrant inclusion as a BLP, but I figured I'd contribute my thoughts for background. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine has separate UK, Australian and South African issues but it's not a WP:RS and she still fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Tiller54 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Boring non notable model. I googled only to have a look at her - not my type. I didn't look for real refs because I can look at the article and her age and guess there aren't any. I will keep an eye on the afd and if any refs are added to the article I will reconsider. Szzuk (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol...dude, did you just vote to delete her because she is boring and you're not attracted to her? Bali88 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, i'm shallow, but not that shallow, lol. I decided she was an obvious delete and then I decided to see if she was eye candy. Szzuk (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A student who got some extra money from a model-photo harly sounds notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2014 (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.