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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Etherington[edit]

Michael Etherington (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)

Article is about a model who does not meet notability. The only reference in the article is a dead link to a modelling agency. Being listed with a modelling agency does not establish notability. In my own searches, I was only able to find coverage in a local paper. See [1]. Whpq (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Apart from modelling, he sounds like a shop manager. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:42. A quick search online found nothing of import. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:42 (a nice recap). Found nothing of use. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:19, 25 June 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.