Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheyenne Parker (model)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) –– FormalDude  talk  01:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheyenne Parker (model)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has been tagged for not meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline since 2018 -- there does not appear to have been an attempt to burnish the article further since then. Individual has appeared on two reality TV shows and does not appear to be notable otherwise. Fixer23 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - while acknowledging that WP:BEFORE here is challenging, as most of the sources that appear during a search relate to the eminently more notable Cheyenne Parker. There are, however, some sources including this fairly in-depth profile, this article, and this one, as well as the usual nonsense you expect to see for reality television like this. I will say that most of what is available has appeared since 2018 (when the article was tagged) so the tags themselves (and this nomination) are understandable.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * keep - While there may be concern about his notability. He has been on three different reality tv shows and has done modeling outside of reality TV.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete being on the cast of reality TV shows does not make one inherently notable and the coverage is not enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what he's received coverage for, at least not for a few years. Stuff like this moves past his reality TV work in the first line.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an interview and the text is garnered from his responses. This not secondary independent sourcing. This is coverage about subject by the subject and written down. This is the same as self promotion. This kind of article is great for a celebrity-gossip site, it sells clicks and magazines. But it is does not help with determining notability. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Parts of it are not secondary, of course, but he didn't interview himself. In fact, it wasn't an interview. Someone independent has pulled together material from multiple sources (including different interviews by different publications), presented it with editorial, and has included quotes from the subject. That's fairly textbook journalism. Its positive, yes, but not self-promotional. Is there any evidence this article was created by the subject, or someone close to the subject?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it is easy to see the entire article is based on comments and opinions offered by Cheyenne Parker himself. And a large portion of this source is quoted material - quoting Cheyenne Parker. This is not considered independent sourcing on Wikipedia. This is considered to be information recounted from a person directly involved with the topic - which in this case is the person himself.
 * It may take place in a web magazine, but there is no independence between the subject and himself from which the information is delivered to the reader. Fails BASIC and ANYBIO. And I will add, this topic is probably WP:TOOSOON. I will acknowledge that the first paragraph might be independent journalism, but this does not constitute significant coverage (in a secondary source).---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That the article is presented in that style (in the subject's voice) does not mean there was not independent editorial oversight of the material and independent decisions made about what should be included and what should not. Again, this is an article made up of pieces of multiple interviews and someone independent of the subject has made editorial decisions about the nature of that coverage. It's not based, for example, on a press-release or even a press statement, where the subject decides what should be covered and that is repeated, verbatim, by the publisher.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Even with WP:BEFORE, the coverage falls short of notable coverage from reliable sources Dexxtrall (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "notable coverage" is supposed to mean, but the sources listed above include a detailed 800+ word account of his activities since his appearances on reality television. Or are you suggesting its not a reliable source?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need for snark and being confrontational. I already discounted that particular source above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no snark here. Your opinion of that source is noted, but its not really based in policy.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but my opinion is based on policy - and guidelines. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete This is a very minor celebrity and not notable. Fails BASIC, ANYBIO. Subject has not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion (including self-promotion). ---Steve Quinn (talk)
 * Keep the sources found do seem to meet requirements regardless of whether this guy seems important. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Minor celebrity. If the article can't expand on his life and career further than a short filmography, I think that can confirm this person is not notable enough.Grapepinky (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It absolutely can, its just that nobody has bothered to do so yet. In fact, it should have been done before the article was nominated for deletion.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If the article can be expanded beyond listings of a very short filmography pleases do so. Please show that it can be done. A general assertion that BEFORE wasn't done is not proof there is more that is worthy for inclusion. Otherwise it seems independent reliable sourcing does not support inclusion for this topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have that process backwards. It's called "BEFORE" for a reason; those are things that should happen  before  an article is nominated for deletion.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have now done so.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per Steve Quinn. The provided references do not seem to guarantee subject's notability.-- Melaleuca alternifolia  |  talk  21:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per WP:HEY. References have been updated, the article has been cleaned up, and the content we have for the subject now relates to more than just his appearances on reality television.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. This guy is just a minor celebrity. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Stalwart111. 172.58.107.175 (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per Steve Quinn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv 🍁  17:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per . He appears to be notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is significant coverage. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage. RamotHacker (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Improved substantially since nomination by . NemesisAT (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep there are several in-depth news coverage. meets WP:GNG. Peter303x (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2021 (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.