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. Kind of split opinion, but I find the delete arguments more convincing since the sources are not strong. Tone 13:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Model and supposed businessperson with a few appearances, including a Playboy cover, but lacking the significant coverage required by WP:GNG, and no evidence of the large fanbase or innovative contributions required by WP:NMODEL.
Full disclosure: there were several more sources before I stripped most of them out of the article, so I encourage you to assess the article as I found it. I think you will find, as I did, that these additional sources are largely interviews (not independent), mostly in questionable and/or self-published sources, or a photo gallery that adds nothing as a source. Hugsyrup 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A model featured on the cover of Playboy and FHM magazine, with a feature in Maximm is notable. She is an International Playboy model Additional covers. Bsquared Magazine Passes WP:NMODELHas made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.. In addition, I consider it poor form to fillet the article by deleting 5 of the 7 sources and then say it does not pass WP:GNG. The purpose of an AfD is for the participants to decide. We already know what the AfD nominator thinks and diminishing the content is poor form. I can add reliable sources to the article if the nominator can agree not to strip them out based on their preference for deletion. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm awfully sorry that you consider it 'poor form'. However, I started working on removing the clearly non-reliable sources before eventually accepting that the article was better off going to AFD. Reverting all of my changes first seemed a little unnecessary. I knew someone would object, which is why I explicitly called it out in my nomination statement, included a link to a version of the article before I had touched it, and added a brief explanation of what I objected to in those sources. Knowing Wikipedia, I should have known that someone would still manage to get upset, but I don't think I'm going to lose any sleep over it. Hugsyrup 09:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Medium.com is used as a reference in 862 Wikipedia articles. [1] They gave her significant coverage [2] and said she had a notable following of 400,000 followers on Instagram. Is there high for famous people? Does it count as a large cult following? She had ample coverage in FHM[3] She meets WP:NMODEL. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Magazine covers would be considered "other production". She did have a significant role in these notable publications. Askmen is used in 174 Wikipedia articles.[4] That seems like a reliable source giving her significant coverage as well. [5] So the WP:GNG seem to have been met as well. DreamFocus 21:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: While I endorse the WP:NMODEL argument, WP:RSP states that Medium is a self-published source [and] should never be used as a secondary source for living persons.ミラP 00:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me to be stretching the definition of WP:NMODEL almost to breaking point to suggest that a magazine cover is equivalent to a film, tv show or stage performance, or that it is what is meant by 'other productions'. The other examples in this criteria are all the subject of reviews, criticism and sometimes books or academic study, much of which is sustained long after the work is complete. Magazine covers are essentially throwaway items that are very rarely the subject of any secondary coverage at all, and using them to establish notability simply because they fit a technical definition of 'productions' is, honestly, absurd. Hugsyrup 09:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, you link to Medium and say "They" give her significant coverage. Who are "they"? Not Medium.com, surely. And are "they" a reliable source that confers notability? Anyone could log into Medium dot com and give their cat "significant coverage". ApLundell (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. Also see my comment above. ミラP 00:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three sources are added to the article, magzter.com, brobible.com and voyagela.com. These sources are used in many Wikipedia articles. Sambroanna (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being used in many articles does not make them reliable/independant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't meet GNG; even with the new sources recently added to the article, none meet GNG. Brobible is not in-depth. Magzter, FHM, Askmen, and VoyageLA are all interview transcriptions, and thus not independent. Medium.com is not an RS; it's red on WP:RSP. – Levivich 21:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 00:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The only logical choice here; simply redirect to the month she represented in Playboy. Other than that she is not expressly notable—be honest. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the keep arguments are mostly bullshit and should be ignored.SpartazHumbug! 23:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Medium is a blog site, not a publication with editorial control, and is patently unreliable. As Levivich mentions above, the remaining sources are not indepth/are interviews and thus not independant (not that brobible for one seems particularly reliable regardless). Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:44, 2 January 2020 (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.