Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Hope

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. Davewild (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hope[edit]

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

Non-notable photographer; fails WP:CREATIVE as sources are links to her work rather than articles discussing her work. Article is more for promotional than encyclopaedic purposes. Gossipy Daily Mail article is not a WP:RS. (Previously tagged for speedy deletion by Biblioworm.) LouiseS1979 (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline promotional, and I could not find any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus making the article fail WP:GNG. --Biblioworm 02:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator and comments above. My search did not yield anything, although a rather high pageview tally (50-100 day roughly) probably a result of her dating the Australian model. Sources in article currently do not show any in-depth coverage of her.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2015 (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.