Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisa Warwick (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 10:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Warwick[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The sourcing for this article is mostly blogs and promotional pieces. I found many of the claims were not fully supported (for example, the list of brands she had modelled for, and her birth date, which did not appear in the archived version of the cited source, which was dated later than that cited). The article turned out to be heavily reliant on Thrive Global, which is blacklisted, apparently for being a churnalism vehicle with no editorial oversight. That source may be found archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20201203112748/https:// /stories/inside-influence-one-on-one-with-louisa-warwick/ (insert t_____g_____.com in the space between slashes). Performing a search for additional references today, I was able to add an approximate birth year from a fluff article in UK Metro—like the New York Post, which the article previously cited for her filing a lawsuit, this is a low-quality tabloid—and I found an aggregate "Who is ...?" article that I used to reference some more details and reduce the reliance on Thrive Global ... but that's Time Bulletin, which is also blacklisted. That reference is https:// /who-is-louisa-warwick/ (insert t___b_______.com in the space between slashes). These are not quality sources, I cannot even discuss them on Wikipedia without limbo dancing under a blacklist barrier as if they are going to infect everyone's comp with malware, and they are the only extended informational articles about Louisa Warwick that appear to exist. The lack of reliable coverage indicates to me that she has not achieved notability since the previous article, Louisa Warwick (model), was deleted in October 2015. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst both articles were created roughly a year apart by Sumsphere (talk · contribs), they are not substantially the same. The edits by Louisawarwick1 (talk · contribs) seem fairly humdrum. Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For some background on the problems with certain WWW sites involving this subject and several others, by the way, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Markowski, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilda Joelle Osborn, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Pierson. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Yngvadottir notes, such coverage of this individual that can be found in the mass media is of almost no merit as evidence for 'notability' in Wikipedia terms. The sources cited in the article are a ragbag collection of promotional fluff, and statements to the effect that Warwick does the things that models/'influencers' etc do. She doesn't appear to have done anything exceptional for someone in her chosen career. Or if she has, nobody seems to have written about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep She's got an article she wrote in Forbes [1] and a mention in the New York Times [2], I think she just makes it for notability. She's featured in Maxim and mentioned by TMZ, which are reliable sources; I can't open Maxim at work, for obvious reasons, will review later for notability. Also find an interview from a local paper in 2009, can help build notability, about her going into modelling. [3]. A reliable mention in Digital Spy about her leaving the Top Model show [4]. I video interview with OK magazine of her via youtube (should be ok as it's from a notable source, posted from their account) [5]. She ran track in high school, competed in an event in Ireland, [6]. She also gave an interveiw in Medium, which isn't as reliable a source, but can at least be used to confirm the athletics claim [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per AndyTheGrump. Also given that Maxim does pay-for-coverage I wouldn't consider it an RS, and the Forbes article appears to have been through the Forbes Council program, which also involves publishing for a fee. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Forbes source is useless for notability. Firstly, it's not actually about her, just written by her. Secondly, it was published under the "Forbes Business Council" fee-for-publication scheme. Per WP:FORBESCON we consider them self-published works. AusLondonder (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the significant secondary sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2022 (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.