- 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. The only real argument for deletion here is that at the time of nomination the article was not reliably sourced. This has now been addressed, and the better arguments here are for keeping. Michig ( talk) 09:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ingūna Butāne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
When I see models with no reliable sources I propose speedy deletion. When that’s contested I propose deletion. Models.com is only reliable for notability when a model is Top 50. That simple. (Note: Yes I looked before and couldn’t find them) Trillfendi ( talk) 18:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Reliable sources supporting the claims in the article are fairly easy to find. Significant ad campaigns, for example, were often covered in WWD, so any WP:BEFORE for a model should include an archival search of WWD (and other pre-internet periodicals for models working in pre-internet time periods). I have added a few sources to the article to verify some of the subject's activities. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- I typically go to WWD when doing research but I hadn’t seen it. Trillfendi ( talk) 00:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable model. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep model seems notable from sources. More can be added via a simple google search. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 20:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep She certainly appears to meet WP:NMODEL, and I see that more sources are available. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 11:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. The only real argument for deletion here is that at the time of nomination the article was not reliably sourced. This has now been addressed, and the better arguments here are for keeping. Michig ( talk) 09:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ingūna Butāne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
When I see models with no reliable sources I propose speedy deletion. When that’s contested I propose deletion. Models.com is only reliable for notability when a model is Top 50. That simple. (Note: Yes I looked before and couldn’t find them) Trillfendi ( talk) 18:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Reliable sources supporting the claims in the article are fairly easy to find. Significant ad campaigns, for example, were often covered in WWD, so any WP:BEFORE for a model should include an archival search of WWD (and other pre-internet periodicals for models working in pre-internet time periods). I have added a few sources to the article to verify some of the subject's activities. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- I typically go to WWD when doing research but I hadn’t seen it. Trillfendi ( talk) 00:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable model. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep model seems notable from sources. More can be added via a simple google search. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 20:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep She certainly appears to meet WP:NMODEL, and I see that more sources are available. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 11:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- 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.