Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Johnson (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Kate Johnson (model)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is far from my usual subject areas, but I cannot see how the career is yet notable. or the references adequate. I've notified the ed. who accept it from AfC.  DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I approved this through AfC, and it was probably on the basis on two Northern Territory News articles and a NAFA magazine cover shoot. I make that significant coverage in three reliable sources. Whether "three" is enough to meet WP:GNG - who knows? A news and web search brings up lots of hits, but most are unreliable or already listed in the article. I won't shed tears if the article gets deleted, if I'm honest. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom: Ms Johnson does not appear to have had a notable career to this point, and we don't need to have an article on her, and so probably shouldn't per her presumption to privacy. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ♔  04:42, 17 December 2013 (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.