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. Topic meets WP:GNG. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kara_Young

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

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

This model has always been a quiet, lowkey, private one and hasn't done much over the years to have an entire page. Reports and documented articles about her have been minor over the decades, with absolutely none in the news now. She should be listed in the Sports Illustrated section as a model, but other than that, her life is really a lowkey one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara_Young KYNY (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)— KYNY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This editor has made NO edits outside of this article.Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, notability is only borderline and sources mention her in passing only. Stifle (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep . I believe this is a bad faith nomination. The editor who submitted this has an issue with one item in the article and has attempted to own the entire article. In any case Keith has made some excellent edits to this article and it warrants keeping.Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, This person is so private, was never as famous as her colleagues during the time she modeled (Cindy Crawford, Linda Evangelista, Naomi Campbell, etc, etc) never had a notable career beyond a few photo shoots, and is now a regular citizen, owning a hair shop like millions of other people, but they don't have a biography about them on this site. It's silly to keep her. JohnJaySee (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)— JohnJaySee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of nominator, see SPI. Amalthea 13:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has made few edits outside of this article.Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator's comment: Delete , Or definitely delete the personal section. No former model this private and lowkey should have an article. Not every model is on here and not every model wants to be, especially mentionings of their husband and children. KYNY (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)— KYNY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Your nomination implies a delete "vote", please don't cast another. Also, are you connected with Ms. Young? Stifle (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I have today added multiple reliable sources including Ebony, LA Times, NY Times, NY Post, Black Women in America. She was a prominent, A-list fashion model in the late 80's and early 90's and appeared on the covers of multiple major fashion magazines.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, The article is being Streeeetched with the same trivial information, which is still very little. Person's unimportant and not very notable, especially considering the fact that she was somewhat recognizable back in the 1980s. No one knows who she is now because she was always just an average citizen who happened to model. BlahBlaahBlaaah (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)— BlahBlaahBlaaah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: User:BlahBlaahBlaaah was blocked indefinitely as a sock account of User:KYNY--Cavarrone (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has made NO edits outside of this article.Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Fasttimes seems to have a very bizarre personal interest in this page. I say bizarre because he doesn't even know her. BlahBlaahBlaaah (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)— BlahBlaahBlaaah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reminder to please stick to discussion of content and avoid personal commentary on editor behavior. Thanks :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, This story about a girl who had a few good modeling jobs is really no news. Also, she's done nothing really important. I'm off to view Cindy Crawford's page and Naomi Campbell's, because they were actual supermodels way back then. Q1Q2QThree (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)— Q1Q2QThree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: User:Q1Q2QThree was blocked indefinitely as a sock account of User:KYNY--Cavarrone (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to meet minimum requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ENT#1. Cavarrone (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Her story is unimportant and rather insulting. She modeled in a few magazines, got "arrested" and her husband comes across as egotistical. To top it off, now she is "retired" which makes her sound so old, yet she works in a hair place, which sounds really simple and a large drop from being a supermodel. Not flattering at all and neither is her picture. Most importantly, the biography is really dull and nothing worth reading. Weakfoot (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)— Weakfoot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I've stricken this comment because it was made by a straightforward sockpuppet of a blocked user. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: Is it not obvious that the subject or someone closely affiliated to her is interested in deletion? Perhaps they will admit as such now, and tell us what their particular concern is. Some privacy as to personal information may be appropriate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand how you drew that conclusion, but I disagree this is the subject or a close associate. It is more likely a sad case of wiki jealously by a lesser known and regarded colleague. In any case, I see NOTHING contentious in this BLP. If the subject wishes information removed, then she could contact OTRS and solve this mystery by providing verification of that she is the subject, and provide information on the offending text, or even bring it up in a rationale matter in the talk page. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Milowent and I respect the privacy of the subjects of BLP's that's why I removed personal info about KY's children. Its off topic and not fair to those are who not notable and not public figures. However, if KYNY is the subject, they should go to BLPN or to OTRS. Deleting sourced content, creating socks and nominating for deletion is not helpful.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:52, 22 March 2012 (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.