Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peta Todd

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. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peta Todd

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 19:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

But she still a notable model and radio personality here in the United Kingdom. She has appeared several times on the BBC radio and television (including the Newsnight programme) to talk about the merits of glamour modelling and to defend Page 3 British tabloid feature.

The current article requires a number of citations and hopefully both I and others will be able to fill the gaps.

--Whohe! (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's not a "former" model at all, she's active and well known in the UK - better sourcing is needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better sourcing from where? Everything I found was a tangential mention at best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better sourcing from wherever anyone can find better sourcing from, that's where - I don't need to do the job myself to suggest that it needs doing. If you have done proper research and can't find anything, then please feel free to !vote Delete -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same thing in every AFD: "Keep but source" gets piled on, and everyone expects everyone else to do the sourcing. As a result, nothing gets improved ever, and the whole Wiki might as well be locked up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's because AfD is for deciding whether an article gets deleted, not for ordering volunteers around and demanding they do sourcing work. There is absolutely no obligation to do any sourcing work in order to opine that an article should not be deleted. But you already know that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep borderline embarassing AfD or poor attempt at an April Fool? Either way, she's still a model, still doing Page 3 and still notable. Silly, silly AfD. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Finding only trivia mentions by sources that would not pass WP:RS. Being able to find lots of nudes of her online doesn't by itself make her notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment You need to take off your blindfold when at your keyboard. 1,540 Gnews archive hits - many from 3,000,000+ daily-selling and 7,500,000+ read The Sun, many of these stories with her breasts covered, too. Neither trivia nor RS; you don't appear to understand internet basics. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted; please comment on the content and the article, rather than the nominator. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear ya, but Dennis wasn't the nominator and he/she backed their !vote with a rationale which simply wasn't accurate - downright lies in fact. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm seeing quite a few more hits than I would expect for a non-notable, active model, and there's indications that she is notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:40, 6 April 2011 (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.