Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable fashion 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. seicer | talk | contribs 19:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable fashion models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

After trying twice to add a "notable models" section to the model article (1, 2), the user simply created this article with his list and later proposed a merge with the aforementioned article after somebody proposed its deletion. Merging is not an option as it's been decided a long time ago to remove lists of notable models from this article as it created lots of problems and edit wars (everybody and his brother has his own conception of "notability", especially when it comes to models). Fashion models already have enough categories not to need an article on top of it.
Not to mention that this article is a total OR and pretty inaccurate at that as only the first five in the list actually did any serious fashion modeling. Thiste (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, I note that by definition any model with a bio here is notable and any non-notable won't have a bio. Therefore if someone wanted such a list, wouldn't a category work better? MadScot (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although it illustrates Wikipedia's shortcomings when it comes to locating a category. For whatever reason, my favorite website has a useless search engine when it comes to finding those items where we can rightfully say "A category is better". Why this is, I don't know. It's as if you type in the word "category" and it comes back, "Category? I don't know no stinkin' category!" Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a category is appropriate. Also seems to be a POV fork out of the model article. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tendentious and unnecessary fork. Note that Supermodel also eschews list format while dropping even more names than this list. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I'll give you the list in the male section of the article, but other than that every name/list there is based on solid facts and not the vague idea of "notoriety". And I can tell you that's a big improvement from what the article has looked in the past. Thiste (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:01, 21 September 2008 (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.