Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Fowler (2nd nomination)

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. Although a late one, there is a consensus that Fowler has enough sources that pass WP:GNG while also passing WP:NMODEL. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Model with inadequate evidence of notability-- no substantial references DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be difficult in this field to distinguish between PR and encyclopedic coverage. Of the references mentioned above, perhaps a case could be made for the first being actual journalism, but I do not think it could for the second. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also here in Harper's Bazaar. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR states notability is met if the model "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Georgia has 780K followers on her Instagram. That seems like a large fan base. The company she models for, Victoria Secret, has the 8th largest following on Instagram.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more references to fashion magazines that feature interviews with Fowler and a couple from News Corp Australia Network. The Victoria Secret Instagram following is over 63,531,983. Would the fact that she's one of their top representatives help her notability case? --the eloquent peasant (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2018 (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.