Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Noorda

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Noorda

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

To be honest, at this time her career has not reached the level of what we can make an article out of (from reliable sources). The only actual source here, Vogue, is a broken link; but what I was able to see didn’t substantiate enough for an article and we obviously can’t go on just one source. “Model with weight issues” isn’t notability. Trillfendi (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets basic WP:GNG. I edited and added couple of more references such as Vogue. She actually seems like a very popular model. If you do a Google image search for her name, there are endless number of pictures for her. IMO, this article should still be improved with more references and content. Google news also brings up more references to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter303x (talk • contribs)

Incredibly you managed to combine all the "arguments to avoid" into one comment. Trillfendi (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I count three different reliable sources, so it meets wp:GNG requirement. Markvs88 (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. However. Article should be developed with more references. Lubbad85 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - baffled where people are finding she passes GNG. Model directories do not count. A profile on New York Magazine does not count. An article about Amber Heard where she is mentioned does not count. A mention in a Vogue article about Bette's wedding does not count. Maybe the Vogue article about her eating habits is something. But that's one source. Where are you people seeing 3 reliable sources that actually discuss her? Yikes. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. Trillfendi (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fixed the Vogue dead-link and it seems a WP:SIGCOV: [1]. I note ABC News picked up on a follow piece her Vogue piece. [2]. Britishfinance (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also found this piece on her in Elle (magazine) [3], which also help clear up some citation issues tagged. Britishfinance (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Feel this is very borderline. Her March 2010 Vogue article about eating disorders was widely covered and there are other refs in Dutch sources from the weeks after that. Outside of that moment, the only other proper coverage on her is the Elle article. I can't find another strong RS on her that would seal it for me. Britishfinance (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Elle Germany 'article' is also a model profile and does not establish notability outside the fact that she IS a model. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of stuff I was talking about months ago but I got barked at, ganged up on, and called names for simply pointing it out. Which is why the requirements for NMODEL need to be revisited again because it’s getting out of control. Trillfendi (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.