Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Morton

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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Morton[edit]

[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)

WP:NMODEL No notability. Being mentioned in the New York Times in 1996, doesn’t cut it. Trillfendi (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fundamentally flawed WP:BEFORE. Multiple profiles in RS, also part of an anorexia controversy in the mid 1990s, easily passes WP:GNG. Some examples: Ritea, Steve (10 March 1997). "Supermodel or No, Her Heart's in Bucks: Annie Morton is on her way, many say". Philadelphia Inquirer. p. B2.; Weale, Sally (3 June 1996). "Women: Look, I'm not that thin: Her pictures in Vogue have put the all-models-are-anorexic argument right back on the front pages". The Guardian. p. T.007.; Baden, Jennifer (2 November 1997). "Who's That Girl". The Sunday Times. p. Style, 46. Bakazaka (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG as per sources.[1] It is possible that some more sources are not online. Orientls (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if they aren’t online then how are we supposed to establish and verify notability here?Trillfendi (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors often consult physical copies of books and magazines, microfilm in libraries, and paywalled databases (which is where the above references come from). Editors working on WP:GEO articles even drive around confirming locations. There's no requirement for online sources, and WP:N is clear: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." If you have a specific reason to doubt the sources that are provided in a discussion, you should raise those specifically. Otherwise most editors seem to assume good faith when sources are provided that they cannot personally confirm. Bakazaka (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:30, 12 November 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.