Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of glamour models

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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of glamour models[edit]

It doesn't meet any of the common standards.I give it a speedy but I thought best to hear what others think. --Hiltonhampton (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Surely this can't be deemed a notable article.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be deemed an article at all, because it is a list and not an article. Those are two entirely different things. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No context, no sources, OR. scope_creep (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Why not? -- Taku (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it? Delete and merge lead to two totally different outcomes and the two can't be combined. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Categorize any models that aren't in a category already. Not only is this list improperly alphabetized on first, rather than last name, it also doesn't add anything that cannot be covered by a category and it doesn't specify when someone is considered a glamor model instead of a regular one. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too subjective to be a list. RMHED (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective and unreferenced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2007 (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.