Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babette March


 * 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   keep. Sufficient sources exist (and are cited in the article) to prove that, in her field, this model is noteworthy. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D  00:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Babette March

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable. Model was once the cover of a magazine. No noteworthy information about her life has ever been published. Damiens .rf 12:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know whether this claim of no coverage is true. It is certainly much more difficult to research models from the 60s, but I believe she is notable by the mere fact of being the first Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover model.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tony. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per the cereal mascot. Joe Chill (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. This looks like a textbook BLP1E case: known for only one event, no significant coverage outside the context of that event, and no active role in the event itself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Normally, I would not invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in this case, it appears that every cover model from Maria Joao forward is notable enough for an article and most prior to her are not? Or, are we simply dealing with a recency effect and the fact that few Wikipedia editors are old enough to remember Babette March? By virtue of being a Sports Illustrated cover, she passes WP:N if any of them do. Eauhomme (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do people out there write about the lives of Sports Illustrated cover models, or is it just a Wikipedia thing? Where are we supposed to find information about her life? Are you expecting "old enough" wikipedians to write an article from their memories? Unless something was sometime published about this girl's life, there's no way we can write a policy-respecting Wikipedia article about her. --Damiens .rf 14:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears we can. Alansohn (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One source I remember is the Sports Illustrated 25th Anniversary Swimsuit Edition, which had biographies of some, if not all the cover models. So I know there is something out there. I'm sure there are other things that have been written for people who choose to look hard enough--local news articles, for example. Eauhomme (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Local news coverage does not establish notability. Having their bios published on SI itself just shows this is a WP:BLP1E case, as User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said above. --Damiens .rf 13:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, nominate all Sports Illustrated cover models for deletion, with the exceptions of the obviously notable? Eauhomme (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be more like: "Nominate for deletion all model whose only claim to notability is have being on the cover of SI"". --Damiens .rf 17:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Does having been "the highest paid model of her day" make her notable? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * According to that article, the cover of SI is not her only claim to notability . Just as I suspected, models did not have the same degree of media exposure then as now, plus there is a great deal of recency effect. Eauhomme (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know who today's top-paid model is, but suppose its Kate Moss or Gisele Bündchen. It sounds to me like this women is like them 40 years ago. Why is there a question of her notability.  We now have a source documenting her notability. I have added this content to the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the "highest-paid" claim were really true, there would be more evidence available than a single, 25-years-later article in SI. Not a single source other than the SI article makes a claim remotely approaching this; there are few other sources; and I don't think it's credible that this otherwise-unknown model was higher-paid than Veruschka, Twiggy, or Jean Shrimpton, or that the highest-paid model of her time was never mentioned by name during that time in media like the New York Times? (Shrimpton, for example, was mentioned repeatedly.) The AP photo index shows no evidence of her, although it does have images of models like Shrimpton. The claim that she was "as ubiquitous as Beatlemania" just underlines how dubious the SI profile is. Ultimately, the SI blurb isn't really an independent, third-party source here, but has elements of self-promotion to it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's assume there are several definitions of highest paid and that probably anyone in the top half-dozen models could make the claim. Then lets say she was an equivalent of Natalia Vodianova or Daria Werbowy who appear well up on the list of top paid models. It might be really difficult to find a lot about her in a wide range of sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a completely speculative explanation that can't be verified. And both of the names you cite have substantial news coverage. It also ignores the "ubiquitous as Beatlemania" claim, which can't be explained away in the same fashion. The fact that we can't turn up one contemporaneous source suggesting she was otherwise notable, and the fact that nobody's turned up anything in the last 45 years sourced from anything but SI suggesting that she was otherwise notable, is pretty telling. Let's face it, the first swimsuit issue wasn't a big deal, being on the cover of it wasn't a big deal, and it defies common sense to believe that SI went out and hired the highest-price talent they could find for the cover photo -- and didn't bother putting her name on the cover. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I continue to support notability for the following reasons.
 * A Ford Models talent who lands a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover is instantly notable by current standards for those two facts alone because being a Ford model means she is doing all kinds of top model stuff.
 * Being a model to me is equivalent to being a professional athlete in terms of WP:N. Proof that you are a professional at the highest level with any flimsy WP:RS support equates to sufficient notability to have a page.
 * I think all professional models who were on the cover of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, any major Vogue cover or in the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show deserve a page.
 * Thus, unless you can contest that she was really a professional model who worked for Ford Models or any other elite modeling agency, I think she should get a page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I contest that there are sufficient reliable, independent third-party sources providing the coverage required to establish notability independently of the SI cover. I've even checked out the fairly definitive history of SI, which gives her only cursory mention (if she were one of the top models of her day, she wouldn't be characterized merely as "waiflike.") . In fact, when Frank DeFord wrote a history of the swimsuit issues he didn't even mention her last name or provide any details about her . You can even view the entire issue online, and name doesn't seem to be mentioned at all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple things
 * 1) The Sports Illustrated article notes that Babette March was commonly known as "Babette" (one name). We should keep that in mind while looking for information about her. There's a New York Times article which seems to list her in the same breath as Lauren Hutton, Colleen Corby, and others: . I can't access it at this moment, but maybe someone could try to track it down to see if it contains anything useful.
 * The Times article doesn't contai anything useful; she's mentioned only in that opening list you cite. But it's a very good catch, nonetheless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just found this article from the Chicago Tribune, which contains a picture. It's written by Eileen Ford herself, so I don't know if it would count as independent, but it's interesting. Zagalejo^^^ 19:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) It appears that Babette March now goes by the name Babette Beatty, after marrying a man named Dale Beatty. See, , and . There is also a website, babettegallery.com, which appears to be run by her; her bio corresponds roughly (though not exactly) to some of the details we have in our article (born in Berlin, top 60s fashion model, lived in Brazil, Montreal, etc). Zagalejo^^^ 08:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF NOMINATION or SPEEDY CLOSE I have beefed up the article for inclustion at WP:DYK now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose speedy close. Zagalejo's research is excellent, but I'm not convinced that it pulls her out of BLP1E.  Highly paid she may have been, but there's still virtually no coverage outside of the context of the swimsuit issue. And I'm very dubious about the article title -- the first use of the name "Babette March" seems to be in the 25-years-late SI article, which is clearly exaggerated or inaccurate on several points (we can all agree, I hope, that "as ubiquitous as Beatlemania" is just not supported by any evidence.  I think it would be more appropriate to identify her as "Babette Beatty." And I still think BLP1E should control -- after all, in the context of the original swimsuit feature (it wasn't a swimsuit issue; the swimsuit content was only a few pages within a larger travel section) she was so low-profile her name wasn't even mentioned. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, what newspaper databases can you access? I agree that she probably wasn't "as ubiquitous as Beatlemania", but there are little pieces of evidence that suggest she was at least somewhat well-known at the time. If you do some digging, you can find a few other pictures of her from the 60s-70s, like this (fourth row). Linda Morand's website also has a picture of Babette, the caption of which calls her a "supermodel": (about 3/4 of the way down). Zagalejo^^^ 04:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notability has been established. Byronwrites (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What standards are you using? Remember this is not a vote. --Damiens .rf 14:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is established with multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there's no multiple reliable sources. Just sources related to her SI cover appearance, proving this is a WP:BLP1E case. And no, the sources are not reliable (see the "beattlemania" discussion above). --Damiens .rf 14:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, this barely mentions Sports Illustrated at all. Zagalejo^^^ 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This whole article is about how the first SI Swimsuit Cover model now enjoys her life as an unknown person. WP:BLP1E. --Damiens .rf 21:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.