Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Pisani

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. Davewild (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Pisani[edit]

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

Article subject fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NMODEL criteria Demdem (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This individual doesn't seem especially notable to me but as a winner of Britain's Next Top Model she would appear to meet WP:REALITYSTAR -- and yes, I know that's not a generally accepted standard, but it's a relevant one. AND, according to the navbox, all the other such winners have an article. Neither of those reasons is especially strong but precedent seems to play a part here. Ubelowme (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toffey20 (talk)KEEPToffey20 (talk) Tiffany is one of the winners of Britain's Next Top Model, all of the past winners have a wikipiedia page so it is only fair and right that Tiffany Pisani also has a page.

There are many links and press on Tiffany Pisani and she is currently still modelling full time and internationally.

I strongly recommend keeping this individual as she is still young and I believe she will continue to succeed.

It is important that this page remains as it is a very trust worthy and should not be suddenly deleted, non of the terms have been violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toffey20 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't going to help. -- Trevj (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- No, Lianna Fowler is a redirect, so they do not all have articles, and meeting a failed proposed guideline is no sign of N. Yes, the terms have been violated, using YouTube video as sources; if the material can't be sourced independently, it needs to be removed, and the videos removed regardless. That said, an article titled 'here to stay' seems to denote beyond BLP1E. Fair doesn't play a part in it, aside from third-party coverage, which is minimal. Dru of Id (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BASIC and refs 1, 3 and 5 in the 7 June version. Concerns over WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E may exist but I don't think they undermine the coverage which exists. -- Trevj (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she has been on a major TV series - clearly she should have a page on Wikipedia and other sites. OracleB (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)— OracleB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Trevj's argument for WP:BASIC/GNG is on-point. However, WP:BLP1E is not applicable here. Of the three conditions for the applciation of BLP1E, the second reads "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." (policy statement). The stated intent of BLP1E is largely to avoid the inappropriate coverage of people who do not thrust themselves into the public square. This is the polar opposite of what it means to be a reality-show star. BASIC met (by a hair), BLP1E doesn't apply at all, I'm left at keep. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:59, 22 June 2012 (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.