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. Courcelles (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Warwick (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I came across this as a speedy deletion candidate, with the nomination claim "not credible sources and false career claims". I don't know if the claims here are false, but I do know that the sourcing in the article is very poor, as it relies on WP:PRIMARY sources, IMDb, and places that are outright unreliable as a source such as "Who's Dated Who?". There's an interview on this website, but the site does not show that they have the editorial oversight required by Wikipedia - plus their "about" page is fairly spammily written and gives off the impression that it's a PR site.

The claims here are enough to where she'd squeak by notability guidelines, but they're not major enough to keep the article as a whole. She was an uncredited role in Rush as "Racing Driver's Girlfriend" and she was only in two episodes of Next Top Model. This means that she was likely voted off along with several other models in one go, which would not show notability for her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as her modeling gigs go, I can't see where she's gained any true coverage for her work. It's expected that a model will gain work in her profession, so notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by her having worked for notable companies, as they tend to hire a large amount of models each year. Notability can only be shown by coverage in independent and reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG. The sources as they exist now don't adequately prove notability due to unreliability. clpo13_(talk) 09:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree that speedy deletion was not proper. I agree with nominator that there is an argument she should squeak by on notability. But generally speaking she's just a model and WP is not WP:LINKEDIN, e.g., "being a competent professional in your field is not the standard for having an article."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:RESUME, no indication of notability. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 19:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now until better sourcing and article can be made as I found nothing better than some modelling websites. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. sst✈ 10:21, 2 October 2015 (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.