Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Dykstra


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Jessica Dykstra

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable model lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER.  ttonyb (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Google the name "Jessica Dykstra" and 100 pictures of her pop up. That makes her notable in my book.
 * Comment – It may make her notable in your book, but not according to the Wikipedia guidelines WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER.   ttonyb  (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - References only verify she's a model without providing any further info on why she's notable. She might or might not be notable in the future but currently it fails WP:NACTOR. Nimuaq (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Up and coming young model, little info available about her other than on her ModelMayhem page.  answers the "who's that girl" question.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.211.65.85 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC) — 167.211.65.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment – "Up and Coming" and " little info available about her other than on her ModelMayhem page" are reasons to delete the article, not keep it. Non-notable subject matter, such as this article, is routinely deleted until there is an indication and support for Wikipedia based notability.  ttonyb  (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - For the Up and coming young model comment, see WP:ATA. Nimuaq (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – I agree with the first comment. Google her and she pops up alot. That's enough for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.41.214 (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - For the "Google her and she pops up alot" comment, see WP:GHITS. Nimuaq (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm allowed to disagree with that, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.18.26 (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sure, but in order to help the discussion, you should also explain why a certain number of search results is enough for you rather than one reliable source that also verifies notability, at least for this article alone. I think sources like this one: Week's best celebrity photos - NYPost support the argument for notability more than thousands of search results. I mentioned WP:GHITS and WP:ATA, to focus more on finding reliable sources than checking the number of Google hits or the future potential of the article. Nimuaq (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - So, if you're saying that it supports the argument, does that mean you are changing your vote to keep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.18.26 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - If reliable sources with significant coverage exists, I'll change my vote. Nimuaq (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Has some worthwhile credits as a model, but they don't mean much in the absence of reliable coverage, and none of the offered sources in the article demonstrate that, while Gnews only turns up hits regarding other people of the same name.   Mbinebri   talk &larr; 19:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - IMHO, If the NY Post defines her as notable enough to be included in best celebrity photos, then she certainly qualifies to have a WIKI page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.211.65.83 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)  — 167.211.65.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment – How does this meet any Wikipedia criteria for inclusion?  ttonyb  (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

keep. shes obviously known enough to have a wiki if one was made for her, she shows up on google, and she has a successful career modeling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.25.41 (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC) "keep" I googled her and found her there. The NY Post listed her as a celebrity. These are significant enough reasons for her to have a wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.59.178 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Keep" with the comment "Google the name "Jessica Dykstra" and 100 pictures of her pop up. That makes her notable in my book" was added by me. As were the comments, "I'm allowed to disagree with that, right?" and "So, if you're saying that it supports the argument, does that mean you are changing your vote to keep?" to Nimuaq. The banner at the top of this debate seems to suggest that if you don't log in, your vote doesn't seem to matter. I have my reasons for not logging in these days. I logged in to post this comment simply to clarify. I vote to keep this article as its creator and someone who has been editing wikipedia articles for over 2 years now.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – AfDs are not votes or is the outcomes based on the number of Keeps vs. Deletes. I am rather surprised an "experienced" editor would not be familiar with the purpose of AfDs and that AfDs are used to provide a polling process that takes into consideration the discussion and the strength of the discussion argument.  If one specifies keep and specifies no reason or an invalid reason (i.e.,  100 pictures of her pop up in a Google search) the admin will most likely ignore the keep argument in favor of the delete arguments.  I suggest you read WP:AfD and WP:POLL for further clarification and a better understanding of the process.  ttonyb  (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as Google results have been criticized in this debate, I still believe it is a decent measure of a model's celebrity status. What else can you judge a model on other than her pictures? I also like the point someone else brought up about her being in the New York Post's celebrity photos. The New York Post is not some rinky dink little local paper. In fact, if you read the article, she is based out of Los Angeles and used to be out of Miami, not New York, and a New York paper called her a celebrity. She did an episode of Burn Notice, an Axe commercial and a photo shoot for Playboy. I firmly believe it should be kept.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I added the tag at the top of the page because the atypical number of never-made-an-edit-before voters here (using non-policy based rationales—and, judging from below, still using them) is indicative of someone rallying friends to come and vote. I would have added the tag even if all these voters registered accounts beforehand.  That said, I can't resist commenting on the Google image search argument.  Even if such an argument was legitimate, the subject would likely fail it in this instance.  A couple dozen photos of her from one red carpet event doesn't indicate notability as a model in the slightest.  It barely even proves that she's a model at all.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 14:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is just a guess, but I think the reason we are seeing so many non-user never-made-an-edit-before votes is because I threw a link to this article on her facebook after I created it. I think her friends and fans are clicking the link, seeing the banner and voting. Sorry if I inadvertently created a hassle for Wikipedia.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – Well, that certainly justifies the use of the Not a ballot banner at the top of this AfD.  ttonyb  (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - she's been on a prime time TV show and a commercial in addition to being a successful model. She deserves a WIKI page because she is talented and note worthy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.123.176 (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)  — 67.81.123.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment – How does this meet any Wikipedia criteria for inclusion?  ttonyb (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Here is my question: How does this article meet the criteria for deletion? The burden of proof, I would say, is there.  I reviewed the reasons for deletion and I do not see how this article meets any of that criteria.  It does not infringe on Copyright, is not Advertising, does not fork, etc... the only objection is that some people may not find her "notable enough"?  Subjective, not measurable.  I vote to keep.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.211.65.83 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per WP:DEL which states "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." which is WP:NMODEL in this case. WP:NMODEL states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." The sources does not support these criteria, but it (WP:NMODEL) also states that "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Notability." So, per WP:GNG which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.", I have voted to delete the article. However, as I stated before, if reliable sources with significant coverage exists, I'll immediately change my vote. I think this source (which is first linked in the discussion by myself) is an independent and reliable source but the main concern is if its a significant coverage, as stated in WP:GNG ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Nimuaq (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per 167.211.65.85. While they !voted Keep, "Up and coming young model" and "little info available about her other than on her ModelMayhem page" are clear signs of being non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the articles I've written or worked on are for minor league baseball players. Terms like "up and coming" and "little other information available" apply there to people who are deemed notable.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Regardless of the type of article, without Wikipedia defined notability, "up and coming" and "little other information available" are dead give aways that there should not be an article on Wikipedia.  ttonyb  (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ho hum. I've commented on so many afd's I wonder why others think the article is notable. Szzuk (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The closing admin might note that many of the keep votes are very suspect.  Even i must admit that "pops up a lot in google" is a far cry from the GNG keep rationale.--Milowent • talkblp-r  03:33, 3 May 2011 (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.


 * Jessica recently signed with Frederick's of Hollywood, and appears in several of their catalogs that came out this January. Does that change things?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.fredericks.com/Heart_Lace_Panty/93788,default,pd.html