Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian fashion models
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Nishkid64 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Canadian fashion models
Unencyclopedic mess, blatantly POV, possibly spam. Yamla 14:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The models who are notable enough for their own articles should have them. But we have no need of this play-by-play. — coelacan talk — 14:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If the individual models are notable, they should have their own pages, otherwise this is not necessary. Plus isn't there already a Canadian models category? Isn't that enough for a list? Freshacconci 16:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep I agree, the article is a drafting mess, but it would be more appropriate to {{cleanup}} the article, and rename it to Modelling in Canada or something more appropriate. Agent 86 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- It might be more appropriate to simply start over when or if anyone actually wants to work on such an article. This article has existed in essentially this form since July 2006, and no one has cleaned it up. I don't want to bother, do you? If no one is going to work on it, it's better that it just be deleted. Someone who actually wants to write such an article in the future would probably not want to bother starting from this draft anyway. — coelacan talk — 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- There are tons of articles in bad shape that haven't been touched in forever; however, poor (or sometimes downright awful) writing is not a basis for deletion - just look in Category:All pages needing to be wikified and Category:Cleanup by month. If there are any POV problems with the article, etc., I can't see how hard they would be to remove (and it appears the {{POV}} tag was never applied to the article). I won't lose sleep if this article is deleted, but that should only be done if it fails to meet the content policies and guidelines. Agent 86 00:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, I don't think there are serious POV problems with the article. The problem is notability and verifiability. A lot of these women don't seem to have Wikipedia articles. Are they notable? I don't know, because there't no reliable sources in the article. It reads like a bunch of original research. I don't know if any of this happened, and without evidence of notability, I don't even know if the reader should care. There's a strong possibility of spam, too, since the one external link has been here since the beginning. — coelacan talk — 02:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- There are tons of articles in bad shape that haven't been touched in forever; however, poor (or sometimes downright awful) writing is not a basis for deletion - just look in Category:All pages needing to be wikified and Category:Cleanup by month. If there are any POV problems with the article, etc., I can't see how hard they would be to remove (and it appears the {{POV}} tag was never applied to the article). I won't lose sleep if this article is deleted, but that should only be done if it fails to meet the content policies and guidelines. Agent 86 00:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- It might be more appropriate to simply start over when or if anyone actually wants to work on such an article. This article has existed in essentially this form since July 2006, and no one has cleaned it up. I don't want to bother, do you? If no one is going to work on it, it's better that it just be deleted. Someone who actually wants to write such an article in the future would probably not want to bother starting from this draft anyway. — coelacan talk — 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This might be a case where it would be cleaner to just nuke this mess and let anyone who wishes to create something coherent start fresh (preferably with a new name like List of Canadian fashion models). The article is a complete mess, reads like an essay, suffers horribly from POV, follows no chronological order, contains several models of dubious notability, and depending on how I look at it, reads like spam or a copy/paste job from somewhere I cannot determine. Resolute 07:29, 10 February 2007 (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.
