Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helene Rask (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Keep (non-admin closure) The consensus is that sources exist that prove the notability of the article subject. Darkspots (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Helene Rask

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

I suspect that recent edits to this article are mainly the work of a disgruntled Wiki contributor whose ramblings are now hosted elsewhere, but can still be reached using a link on the Helene Rask page. Guess which one. Also 'Rask Models, Norway's most popular model agency' is blatant advertising - not to mention hyperbole. Damansky (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Moved from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know what the nom means with the disgruntled editor; her name pulls up quite a few google and g-image hits, and more importantly, a number of google news hits. I'll also point out that a nearly identical version of the article survived an AfD a while back I'm also going to remove the fact tags and put a general citations needed tag; that many s is just unnecessary. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing it's being nominated for deletion due to a perceived advertisement or WP:COI. Even if the current version contains such flaws, the article has been around since late 2004 so it's definitely fixable. SWik78 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Topic seems reasonably notable after a Google Search. Article could use a little work, but not worth deleting, IMO. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per JeremyMcCracken.--Berig (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per WP:HOTTIE :) Joking asside, Seems notable.  Sort of fails in the WP:RS area for citing...  --Pmedema (talk) 18:05, 17 April 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.