Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Oldfield


 * 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. Talk Islander 11:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Emily Oldfield

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

Model who (to me) does not appear to fulfil WP:ENT. All third-party references are trivial mentions, with the possible exception of the Playboy page. There is also a clear conflict of interest issue, as the author self-identifies as the subject of the article. The article has been deleted several times, and the author posted this tirade which includes a legal threat to one of the deleting admins' talk page. bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I had to block the page creator for making legal threats, so she will be unable to defend the article here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: - The page was deleted via PROD, so speedy G4 doesn't apply here. I have undeleted the history to establish proper attribution. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Ms. Oldfield appears to a successful model, but to be a notable one she needs third party reliable source coverage and I am just not seeing much. The references in the article are insufficient to establish notability, IMO, and I was unable to find anything else in my good faith searches. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a strange case. Initially, a Google search promises 290,000 hits, and leads off with a group of images, usually a sign of human intervention in the search returns. But it all evaporates upon closer inspection. If one were to construct an article using only Google News returns, it would read quite differently than the current article. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:ENT. Pretty faces are a dime a dozen on the internet where they spread like wildfire, so the Google hits are not impressive. Closer inspection reveals no news about her. The most independent of the references is a two sentence blurb in the Daily Mirror (of all places!) that states: "LAST week we reported that Emily Oldfield had falsely claimed she was having Lee Ryan's baby in 2004. We accept that Emily was telling the truth and offer her our sincere apologies." Turns out she wasn't. I'm not convinced there is enough notoriety in that to warrant a redirect to Ryan's article. Location (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails notability per WP:ENT & WP:HOTTIE. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. She doesn't even know the difference between "your" and "you're", and Wikipedia is no place for that sort of carry on.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 00:58, 12 August 2009 (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.