Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Nixon

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Nixon[edit]

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

No evidence of any special notability. The refs provide publicity not notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that someone who was discovered by the late Helmut Newton, photographed by some of the world's leading photographers, has written 2 best selling books, edited a fashion magazine, run a deli, and is now a company director for a company that manufacturers sanitary products for humanitarian aid is notable. To have one successful career is something that many would consider special to have several is both special and notable. Paulwest (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Paulwest (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand and can sympathise with your concerns. However the bar for notability in Wikipedia is set higher than that, and measured against those criteria, this article does not demonstrate notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now since it's questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her first book got some coverage: [1], [2], [3], [4]. However, most of these are just beauty tips, a quotation or two from Nixon, and a plug for the book. It's difficult to find articles about her specifically, but part of that may be a lack of digitized sources from the 1960s. I don't have a problem with deletion, but it seems like maybe this could be moved to draft space to give the creator a chance to look for better sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells of conflict of interest. No idea what the heck is with this image upload at File:Image of Victoria Nixon.jpg with image license: This file is in the public domain, because On multiple websites -- what does that mean ??? Because "on multiple websites" means anything is in the public domain ??? Additionally, literally all uploads on Commons have no permission from original photographer or magazine that holds copyrights and are copyvio. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI isn't a policy-based reason to delete an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject also fails on reception of significant discussion in secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also similar problems with article by author at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Messenger. — Cirt (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of problems with this article. Lack of sourcing, poor compliance with WP standards and copyright issues on the images. That said, I am unconvinced that this wouldn't meet our standards if only it was better written, and that's no reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us where the individual has received significant discussion in secondary sources independent of the subject ? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOUR. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, this is an interesting one. Looking at it from the surface, my initial reaction was to think that she OUGHT to be notable at least for her modelling career. However, when I tried to probe further, I really struggled to find sources about her that are suitable. The article is very promotional. I do have to note that this "reference," as quoted: "Joyce Dinsay of the University of the Philippines Baguio school biology department mentions the advice given in Victoria's book "Supermodels' Beauty Secrets" - is just too adorably cute for words. Awww factor aside, though - sadly, it all has to be a delete vote. Mabalu (talk) 02:35, 4 April 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.