Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Duque Lovisoni

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Duque Lovisoni[edit]

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

Despite all the references, there appears to be nothing here to attest to notability. After removing the Facebook, YouTube, and internal Wikipedia refs only one seems to actually mention here , and then only in passing as a one time Playboy model. Reads very much like a publicity piece but fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does making a Playboy cover qualify for WP:NMODEL? Nothing about the way her career is described tells us whether she was a highlight of the various campaigns she appeared in or whether she had the spotlight on the TV programs on which she appeared, or whether she was an anonymous body modeling clothes in all those cases. The last couple of examples look like instances of that coupled with attempts at notability by association. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, offered or to be found. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the absence of feedback, I'm going with my feeling that Playboy, in the context of the whole world, isn't the counterpart of the Academy Awards for the modeling field. There's no reason why it would be: The Academy Awards are based on group acclaim, while Playboy cover models are chosen by one publisher's editorial staff. I see no evidence of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Because of where I'd originally placed my 24 December !vote, the person who relisted this discussion on the 26th may not have noticed that there had in fact been a contribution to the discussion since the first relisting. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2016 (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.