Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelsey Olson (2nd nomination)

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. WjBscribe 22:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Olson

Completing nomination for 203.36.120.5, who only added {{afd}} to the page and listed the old closed AfD on today's log. No opinion. Resurgent insurgent 09:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though the prior AFD was just seven weeks ago. Most of the "references" are to a fan BBS (or something like that). She may be notable, but this doesn't really back it up.--Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The close at the previous AfD was "Keep and add sources: DGG 00:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The credits seem genuine, despite their being listed on a public bulletin board. The agencies and magazine pages seem real. Worthy enough of a mention 209.244.16.205 00:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This model does nothing ouside of the sphere of the regular business of modelling that makes her noteworthy. ALL plus size models are being scrutinized right now and enjoying heightened media attention as a result of the skinny model debate. Should we give them all an entry? The other claims are also in line with the regular business of a model: The majority of plus-size models have regular clients. A large number of plus-size models have been in national magazines and on TV shows. The highest paid plus-size models earn US$100K per annum, and her client list does not suggest she is notable in that particular respect either. She is not represented by a New York based agent, which indicates that her notability does not extend far into her own industry. Genuine credits or not, this entry is vanity-based and does not merit inclusion. Hers is not a celebrity or household name in America nor anywhere else in the world, and the entry does not meet the Wiki guidelines for inclusion of people. If anything, I suggest a merge into a suitable place within the entry for plus-size model, but there are many other models that should be ahead of Ms Olson in the queue. AntiVanity 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I wouldn't characterize this as totally lacking sources, the Bombshell magazine one looks passable enough, but that's only one, and the primary notability criteria asks for multiple independent sources. Google doesn't seem to turn up much (I'm assuming this woman is not the same as the one who plays for the Saskatchewan Female Midget AAA Hockey League). It has only been seven weeks since the last AfD, but there doesn't seem to have been much meaningful activity in that interim. A borderline case, but I don't think there's quite enough there. But I certainly think that recreation should be allowed if more sources turn up. Xtifr _tälk 02:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not state it lacked sources in this discussion, only that all of the work cited is what is done in usual course of business for a model, and that in and of itself it does not merit her entry to the Wiki. Bombshell Magazine is a grassroots, free-to-all webzine and during startup actively canvassed for photos to use on its covers and for its articles that models, eager for free publicity, submitted for free use. Olson's appearance in the webzine falls into that period. Furthermore, all citing of images and discussions of Olson on http://www.judgementofparis.com as proof that the model is noteworthy must be tempered with the knowledge that the website is poorly regarded by model agents and clients, and that it is censored vigorously and with extreme prejudice by the web admin. Ironically, many discussions about the site's heavy censorship and the preferences exhibited are resident on Bombshell's sister site,Curvy Chick (click for a link to one) By way of a belated introduction, I have been in the fashion industry for over 10 years, and I know Olson's true stature. Without prejudice - she simply doesn't merit an entry... yet. AntiVanity 08:21, 11 April 2007 (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.