Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Swan

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The result was keep - (nomination withdrawn). Yuser31415 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Swan

Maria Swan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable. Keep she apparently has had independant and reliable media coverage not mentioned in the article. Epbr123 11:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. For someone who has this much coverage, as well as some references in the article, a more detailed rationale than "not notable" would be in order. Internet presence for a model might well be bloated, but the subject does appear to have garnered enough interest around her to pass WP:BIO guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Unreliable sources. Epbr123 14:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep She appears to have had enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines. Leebo T/C 14:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete None of the cited sources qualifies as a quality independent reliable source. Her "coverage" amounts to little more than a couple blog entries. The Zimbio article is clearly a mirror of the Wikipedia article. The claim that she is a top Czech model is unsourced, and needs sourcing to establish notabililty. --Beaker342 16:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing on Google News Archive for maria.swan+model. The sources provided in article and AFD so far are none of them reliable. Fails WP:BIO from what I see. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of Notability and little/no refs. NBeale 14:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple magazine cover appearances: [1], [2], and [3], and an appearance on the German Oliver Geissen Show. Clearly passes WP:BIO: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This is a celebrity, not a vanity page. Using WP:N to delete such pages is an abuse of the term "notability." A celebrity, even if one particular editor has not heard of her, is by definition notable. It is Wikipedia's goal to provide unbiased, sourced articles on just such subjects. Dekkappai 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Those sources should be incorporated into the article somehow. Epbr123 18:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Dekkappai's comments. --David Hain 19:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dekkappai. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep She was featured again on the cover of this month's Loaded magazine in the UK. Her notability was further increased by her appearence in 3d on a dvd of the same issue :) TheExtruder 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Current coverage meets and exceeds WP:BIO standards. RFerreira 02:46, 20 March 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.