Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I have to agree with the delete !voters here. No significant coverage in independent sources. If she get's more coverage later then this article can be recreated. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Cloutier[edit]

Kim Cloutier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable model. Some covers, some works, just that. Damiens.rf 13:07, 22 November 2010 (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) 00:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TtT and Mbinebri. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems unremarkable, and nobody has yet dredged up any infotainment coverage of her. -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appearing in the SI Swimsuit Issue as well as in several significant style magazines like Elle establishes notability. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which policy supports that? Or is it just your wishful thinking? --Damiens.rf 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which policy supports your wholly subjective deletion rationale? Take your snide attitude and cram it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:N. "wholly subjective" in yours account. Still waiting for you to reply my question. --Damiens.rf 13:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Inclusion is considered the de facto standard by which supermodels are measured [1]. This would appear to present quite a strong argument that inclusion in the SI Swimsuit Issue satisfies WP:N. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you show tell me where that statement appears in that source? All I can find is "the arbiter of supermodel succession", which essentially says that quite a few of the models have gone on to become supermodels. This does not mean that all the models are important or notable. GDallimore (Talk) 18:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the current lack of independent reliable sources discussing the subject, but without prejudice to allowing the article to be re-created if such sources become available later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As already said, notability is demonstrated by independent, reliable sources discussing the subject. A friendly six-line "interview" below a pin-up pic doesn't qualify. East of Borschov 17:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Being an SI cover girl is not in the ballpark of Playmate of the Year for establishing notability, sorry. We don't just fabricate notability policy to support our favored articles. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If she'd been on the cover, then I might have been inclined to agree with the arguments that being a swimsuit model alone makes her notable. But she wasn't on the cover. If she had, she might have received some independent coverage and we wouldn't be having this discussion! There are also some logically fallacious arguments being made above about the importance of the Swimsuit edition: the fact that some famous people have been models does not logically lead to the conclusion that all swimsuit models are famous or notable. And there is only one even vaguely reliable source provided. the other source, a directory of models, is not an independent source that can support notability since it is probably written by her or her agents. GDallimore (Talk) 18:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kim_Cloutier&oldid=1081090264"