Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Chevalier (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 delete. Tone 17:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Chevalier (model)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite appearing on the cover as an advert to flog magazines, whcih I suppose must might show some sort of notability, the references here are a mixture of passing mentions, interviews supposedly with the person and nothing that shows to me that she is notable. Fiddle  Faddle  13:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP ent: notability requires a model have significant amount of followers.


 * Keep - follower amount and multiple front covers . Not many models are playboy front cover girls either . Also Wikipedia has a women problem, not enough women  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledownon10 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Wp ent states that significant social media following counts . 1.2m followers plus multiple cover girl features . FHM magazine also featured her online . 2600:1011:B16B:5305:41CB:4449:1ED:FDB1 (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * delete paid for spam with utterly weak and garbage sourcing. Praxidicae (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * *keep Keep WP notability guidelines state an entertainer with significant following count as notable plus she’s a cover girl for playboy . That is a credible publication — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b005:e179:ad47:eb86:ff51:2b57 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * based on what reliable source? Because all I see supporting that are 2 user generated and one unreliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * this is not unreliable it’s a magazine


 * https://theinscribermag.com/glamour-girl-ici-paris-q-and-a-with-playboy-cover-girl-and-glamour-model-elizabeth-chevalier/Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B005:E179:AD47:EB86:FF51:2B57 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)  — 2600:1011:B005:E179:AD47:EB86:FF51:2B57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It is truly adorable you think a 404 from a shitty blog is a reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - FHM magazine feature her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B005:E179:844:58C5:5EE7:B99 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * N.B. I have struck this !vote as the user has already !voted ‘keep’ in this discussion- see Special:contributions/2600:1011:b005:e179::/64. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - model passes Wp:notability for entertainers . 1.2m followers, on entourage show  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.132.136 (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable --Devokewater  @  16:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. All the career activities in the article are regular modelling work, nothing notable to merit an encyclopedic biography. MurielMary (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep- model on magazine covers and made TV appearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterSofteeTruck (talk • contribs) 05:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of thousands of models have appeared on magazine covers and made TV appearances. They cannot all have biographies on WP, there has to be some notability criteria applied. Why should Chevalier be considered more notable than any other model? MurielMary (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment We seem to be getting a sudden influx of WP:SPA, often IP only which makes me suspect sockpuppetry,come here to 'vote' as if this were a ballot. This is not a ballot. The closer of the discussion will look at policy matters together with the substance of the arguments raised and reach a conclusion. If that agrees with a minority or a majoroty of the comments entered it will be down the the strength, not the quantity, of their policy based arguments. Fiddle   Faddle  07:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems that the 3rd and 4th support comments are from the same IP? MurielMary (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And the IP 209.136.132.136 has two total edits - one in 2018, and this 'vote.' I was going to strike the vote but at this point the outcome seems obvious as Delete. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Based on what appears to be extensive socking, I've semi-protected the page for the remainder of the AfD. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability here, modeling, acting, or general. Trillfendi (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. The creator has disclosed she is WP:PAID to write another article so this is almost certainly a WP:VANITY piece too... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Entirely fails to meet WP:NMODEL, WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2020 (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.