Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Salmon


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Carrie Salmon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability tag from 2013 is right. You already know the deal with FMD, it’s not a RS. None could be found. WP:NMODEL. Trillfendi (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Some can be found in newspaper/periodical databases, which are the places to look for coverage of a non-superstar who worked in the 1990s. But basically it's two versions of a Canadian Press NewsWire story, and a Seventeen profile:
 * is a 1100+word front page story, about 85% of which is specifically about Salmon.
 * is a 650-word profile on her travels, appearances in magazines, and growing career (at the time). It also refers to a profile of Salmon in a French magazine, but does not specify which one.
 * which is a text/photo profile of her personal style.
 * Bakazaka (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. MarkH21 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Revised, see later comment. MarkH21 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Models are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because an indiscriminate directory of models technically verifies that they exist. For a model whose most notability-approaching work was in the 1990s, possible media coverage might not Google very well, so this could potentially be recreated if somebody is able to dig up enough archived media coverage about her to get her over WP:GNG, but Bakazaka is correct that what they found isn't enough to do that. It takes considerably more media coverage to get a person over the bar if the notability criterion you're shooting for is "passes GNG because media coverage exists" than it does if you're shooting for something on the order of "won a major award for her work". Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep To meet WP:NMODEL, we need reliable verification that she did do shows for the brands named in the article. To meet WP:GNG, we'd need SIGCOV in IRS. I think we would find both, particularly the former, if we had access to offline sources. Online, as well as the 1993 and 1995 sources Bakazaka found, I also found:
 * The New Yorker, Volume 73, Issues 1-6, 1997, a snippet view that verifies that she modelled for Dior.
 * The Times Colonist also had a story in 1993 (18 March, pages C1 and C2), 'Saanich teen: a role model', about the Seventeen profile, names her school, how she got to New York and then to Paris, had already modelled for Seventeen, Marie-Claire France and Italian Glamour.
 * The Times Colonist again, 3 April 1994, p. M4 - a paragraph in an article, which gives the information that she had also appeared in Vogue and Harper's Bazaar by then.
 * So those sources confirm some information in the article, and could add more. The 1995 article also verifies magazines and mentions a brand, L'Oréal, not yet included in the WP article. Overall, I would say there are enough sources to verify that she does meet WP:NMODEL, and WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I don't find the sources Rebecca posted enough to meet either WP:NMODEL (only a Dior verification, not enough) or WP:GNG (passing mentions or not WP:SIGCOV which requires multiple significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in detail). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more relist to hopefully get more discussion about the sources proposed by RebeccaGreen.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 17:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Soft keep. Revised previous vote on the basis of the subject appearing to meet WP:GNG based on the Montreal Gazette and Times Colonist sources given here, although I cannot verify the sources themselves nor whether they're really significant coverage as I do not have access. I'm not convinced the subject meets WP:NMODEL, but that's irrelevant if she meets GNG. The material from these sources need to be incorporated into the article. MarkH21 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable model who fails WP:NMODEL. A few articles in local newspapers and passing mentions in others are not significant coverage that shows that the wider world has taken any notice of her. That she has appeared in fashion magazine is pretty much run-of-the-mill for a model. Hzh (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2019 (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.