Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Dexter


 * 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Bernie Dexter

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. I cannot find any reliable coverage in a WP:BEFORE search. GPL93 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete can't find any reliable sources, all that comes up when I search the name are their personal website/linkedin/zoominfo/etc. >>> Wgullyn . talk ; 01:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed vote per below. I'm convinced enough with sources presented by Eddy. SBKSPP (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Not an expert on the notability standards for models but she appears to pass it. There are several sources in the article and I was able to find     . ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 02:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * None of these appear to be particularly notability-lending. 1 is an interview with a non-reliable blog that refers to itself as a "DIY" Punk news site; 2 is an interview on the blog section of a website for a company that does hair and makeup for weddings, 3 is also an interview with a non-reliable blog where articles are submitted from freelancers/outside contributors and then published; 4 is a listicle, 5 is a community college student newspaper, and 6 appears to be paid given the sales pitch at the end. GPL93 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per the analysis above that shows that none of the presented sources add at all towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Eddy. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The existing references are not good and are promotional blog posts or empty pages. Looking at the new sources, I agree with GPL93, 1, 2 & 3 are biographical but not very in depth and are blog interviews by fans, 4 is basically a caption on a photo and 5 & 6 are thinly disguised ads for her store and clothing line, not anything biographical. I will say that she seems to be well-known in the small pinup world but I think the best that could be written with these sources is a fan page, not a Wikipedia article.
 * Given the focus on youth in the modeling world, I don't know if more reliable sources will be forthcoming in the future if the main focus in this article is on her modeling career. If her businesses take off, that could be another story but they don't meet our notability standard at this point in time. Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 24 February 2022 (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.