Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Huppenkothen

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 no consensus. There seems to be no agreement on the subjective question on whether the sources on this person are enough to push them past the WP:GNG. I am also very disappointed at some editors feeling a need to comment on the phyiscal attractiveness of the subject; a topic that is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Huppenkothen[edit]

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

This person is not notable and there are insufficient references to demonstrate notability. Wayne Jayes (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She may be hot, but notable not. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely agree with Why should I have a User Name? - If we could vote purely on looks then she'd get a 100% Keep from me ... But sadly we can't!, And see'ing as there's no notability yet it'll have to be Delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not all hot models are notable. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have failed to find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. I have also failed to understand why we have to refer to her attractiveness in this discussion when it is totally irrelevant (we would hope, in the 21st century) to her notability. And we wonder why Wikipedia has mostly male editors... BethNaught (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, BethNaught, I was referring to an in-joke around here, found in this essay. My attempt at a meta-joke failed. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BethNaught - Since I get told to be alot nicer I thought I'd do just that and compliment her looks, But I see that we've offended you so I apologize for that, It's never my intention to offend anyone, Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't offended me, I just don't like sexism. Nevertheless, thank you for the apologies. BethNaught (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, as I began this, I must also defend myself. I was only trying to say that her beauty does not increase her notability (in WP:N sense :-) and that I would not be influenced by that beauty while I was assessing her notability. :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not inherently sexist to call a person "hot". Considering she is a model who gains any notability she has from her looks, this is clearly the case. I could see similar statements made about a male model. Now, if this was someone like Mia Love, or a leading scientist or writer, I could see objections to the comments as possibly sexist, but not when we are dealing with a person who is a model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ANYBIO... 2007 Title Holder Nuestra Belleza Distrito Federal, one of the only two designates from Distrito Federal, Mexico to the Miss Mexico national contest,[1] final winner of the Miss Sports Award at the Miss Mexico national contest 2007. I've added a few references on the bio too. Wifione ^Message 14:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She can be notable as a model for her awards in the "Miss mexico" contests + two times cover girl on GQ and Esquire. She's also working as a sport journalist in one of the main mexican TV since 2008 (6 years). --Paul Gascoigne (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see broad coverage about this subject available to show that WP:GNG is met. I fear the WP:HOTTIE diversion above had the opposite effect of that joke.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Issues about beauty are irrelevant. The WP:GNG requires a subject to have multiple nontrivial coverage in reliable sources and this subject has it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Total lack of sufficient coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with the above, appears to meet both WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG SPACKlick (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2014 (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.