Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtenay Pettigrew


 * 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. Although the editor arguing for keep is quite vigorous, sources have not appeared. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  01:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Courtenay Pettigrew

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER; non-notable; nothing to back up magazine appearance claims. A Google search brought up nothing other than a Facebook profile - no secondary sources at all; the Fashion Model Directory (basically the IMDB of the fashion world) has no entry for her, and the subject's one listed agency doesn't seem to exist. I nominated it for deletion, but the tag was removed w/o an explanation. Mbinebri (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: Hoax. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Do NOT DeleteOkay, I'm new to wikipedia so I'm not sure what I should be posting to oppose this. Anyway, Mbinebri- what are you smoking? You blatantly lie in your entry. A Google search brings up a MODEL SHOOT with several pictures (RIGHT BELOW THE FACEBOOK PROFILE), and a "talent profile MODELING auditions and casting" page. And since when is a google search the ONLY source of supportive evidence? Under Wikipedia: Verifiability, it clearly states, "Reliable sources may be print-only, electronic-only or be available in both print and electronic formats." What this means for people who can't read google entries is that if you were to look at the print copies of Cosmopolitan and Instyle, you would notice the subject in question. Larry1162 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry1162 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As you have managed to find WP:V, can I suggest you also read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF before making these kind of statements? If there are print only sources, then the article needs references to them that can be checked.   Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  22:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficiently notable. Talent profile at Explore Talent is blank (no photo, no resume) . No photo of her on the web. No reliable sources on the web. Cosmopolitan.co.uk and cosmopolitan.com return no results. I'm confident she exists, but Wikipedia notable? No. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 Do NOT Delete  Mbinebri- Thanks for the link to Wikipedia: Civil. Sorry, but lying civilly is still lying. Anybody who can read can see that you lied about the google search. How about an explanation for that? "Nothing but a facebook profile" is pretty unambiguous. I have met her and if she doesn't exist, she does a pretty good impression of a fake person. As for "QuiteUnusual"- you're confident she exists, but still want the article deleted? How many models who have appeared in Cosmopolitan and Instyle do YOU know of who graduated from Princeton, was valedictorian of their high school, and got a 1600 on their SATs? They're not exactly growing off trees. By the way, the Valedictorian part can be found on that aforementioned google search that "only" brings up a facebook profile. If I can find all of this within the space of 10 minutes, then all of you can too. That DOES make her a role model, and that DOES make her "Wikipedia Worthy." In fact, I'd argue it makes her more accomplished and unique than any of those anorexic models who appear on the so called "IMDB of Models." I say leave the article on. Maybe little girls who find it will say to themselves, "hey, I can be beautiful AND smart."Larry1162 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment struck out second keep (do not delete) by same editor for clarity. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  00:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you're taking this the wrong way, Larry1162, but one of the cornerstones of notability for Wiki inclusion is the existence of reliable secondary sources on the subject, and a Google search (a common Wiki test) brings up none that I can see. The top five hits are Facebook, fatcopxxl.com, barillari.org (broken link), exploretalent.com, and scheppens.com (about a clinical research staff) - all questionable sources.  Google News delivers zero results.  As for her educational accomplishments, they are impressive, but by no means do they confer notability as a model, which the subject otherwise seems to lack.


 * And as QuiteUnusual directed you to a couple policy pages, I would also recommend WP:COI. Mbinebri (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mbinebri, I think I've lost more than a few brain cells trying to reason with you people. I wasn't even able to get drunk in return. But here's an interesting thought.  You've already established in your most recent post that you're a liar, since you contradict your statement, "A Google search brought up nothing other than a Facebook profile."  Shouldn't this cast doubt on your credibility and your ability to utilize Google, which in your eyes is a critical and "common Wiki test?"  Would I not be able to link to this webpage as evidence if I were to try to contradict whatever other garbage you've written on wikipedia?

Joe the Plumber is not notable as a plumber. He's notable as a plumber because of there were unique facts that established him as a unique plumber. Similarly, Pettigrew has unique facts that establish her as a unique model. Models are typically seen as empty headed and superficial. They're not perfect parallels, but I'll let you connect the rest of the dots all by yourself. Thanks for the link on objectivity. Having met someone does not in and of itself influence objectivity one way or the other, nor is there sufficient evidence in any of my posts to suggest I'm not objective. The reason I'm arguing is because the arguments you people make don't make any sense and are poorly supported. It makes me doubly angry to learn once again about the masses and the basic inability of the vast majority of people to think and reason coherently. Larry1162 (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Making personal attacks on other editors will not sway the case for or against deletion, so I think you should calm down and try and stop accusing people of being liars. The "unique facts" you keep mentioning, refer, I presume, to this part of the article: "Pettigrew was praised as a good role model for young girls because of the wholesome image she has maintained. Pettigrew was the second model to graduate from Princeton University". The problem is there is no reference to a reliable source that backs this up as a fact. You say it is a fact, but how do we know this? Who has praised her? Who says she has a wholesome image? If it's just you, that's not good enough for Wikipedia. You have to have a link to a reliable source that makes this statement. There are particularly strong rules around biographies of living people that do not allow unsourced comments on people's characters to be included. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  11:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, because like others have said, there's no evidence of notability, and not enough references. TheFeds 06:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - a search reveals no reliable sources writing about this model. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2008 (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.