Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Winton


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Kate Winton

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable glamour model Pontificalibus  (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

how is she "non" notable??

she has a HUGE list of appearances to date in many famous magazines and is set to host her own tv show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WELUVKATE (talk • contribs) 08:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Upgrading to Snowball Delete. Just because someone is in a magazine, that does not make them notable. Heck, I'd have my own page if that were the only criteria. As for the "set to host" a TV show, see WP:CRYSTAL. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay so being on the front cover of zoo weekly as well as numerous appearances over the past few years, the front cover of the tv guide, working with celebrities like jessica mauyboy, molly meldrum, ronda burchmore, the wwe wrestlers, the crusty demons, appearing in xtina aguileras tour downunder dvd as an extra, numerous bikini pageant titles and appearances means shes a nobody? she even has her own facebook group! Kate on beauty and the geek official fan page Okay so maybe shes still establishing herself as far as "worldwide" but as far as we are concerned she is a fully accomplished AUSTRALIAN glamour model!!! She does Adelaide proud and should be recognised on wikipedia!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WELUVKATE (talk • contribs) 11:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI I'm Australian too and I know that any 20-year-old with a hot body could do all of those things you mentioned and more. Next, having a facebook group is not notability - a mate of mine created a group dedicated to his right hand. Next, define "accomplished". Next, "as far as we are concerned" is not evidence of notability. Do you have any credible sources to prove it? Next, how old are you anyway? Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looks extremely non-notable to me. --DAJF (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * keep well if any 20 yr old with a hot body could do it and more i dont see why they all shouldnt be allowed to have wikipedia pages! Shes a local celebrity to us!! and we believe she should be allowed to have a wikipedia, just because we were unsure of how to edit it and havent put all of her achievments to date on isnt a fair reason to delete it - i have added as many referances as i can for tonight I have work tomorow so please do not delete it while im in the middle of creating it! a mate of yours created a fb group for himself? a complete stranger created one for her! accomplished is defined as everything she has achieved to date and she continues to suceed, tv shows, guest appearances, bikini contests, beauty pageants, shes worked with many australian celebrities since she was a child, as far as "credible" evidence as I said im adding to it as I can, ive never used wikipedia before and am not hugely computer literate thats no reason to take it out on a fan trying to create a page for someone that inspires her. and how old am i? probably alot older than you think I am, regardless I dont really think my age has anything to do with it? She's also trying to raise breast cancer awareness amongst other things, so i think you should leave her page be! WELUVKATE (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * delete also fellow B&G contestant jeremy reading [] has a wikipedia so why cant kate? WELUVKATE (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You just recommended that we Keep the article, so I struck your Delete comment, since it contradicts the substance of your second comment. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I appreciate that Ms. Winton is popular, and that she has had magazine appearances, but that doesn't really do anything to establish notability. On Wikipedia, we have to have news articles and other reliable sources that show that the subject is notable. In this case, we need articles that talk about Kate Winton herself - not appearances of Kate Winton as a model, or mentions that Kate Winton appeared somewhere. Even one good article talking about Ms. Winton and her career would be sufficient. Hosting a reality TV show has some value, as well, when the show premieres - but not before. Please calm down and discuss this article and its merits, as well as sources that can be provided to bolster it - don't take this request personally, as it's not. If this deletion request ends up improving the article, so much the better - that's the goal, after all. Work with us to keep the article, please. At present, seeing the lack of sources, we should delete the article under our policy - but I'm happy to switch over to Keep if sources come forward. Best, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The only arguments for keeping have been put forward by WELUVKATE, who would be well advised to read Wikipedia's notability guideline, because the arguments given do not relate to the guideline at all. Also the guideline on reliable sources and the policy on what Wikipedia is not should be helpful. No, appearing on covers does not constitute notability, and nor does having a facebook group: I could easily set up a facebook group for myself if I had nothing better to do with my time: that would not make me notable, either by Wikipedia's criteria or otherwise. "She does Adelaide proud and should be recognised on wikipedia" is not a reason either: Wikipedia does not exist to confer recognition on deserving people. Likewise "She's also trying to raise breast cancer awareness amongst other things, so i think you should leave her page be": Wikipedia does not exist to promote causes, no matter how good those causes are. And so it goes on with the other reasons listed ... Finally, "i have added as many referances as i can for tonight". Unfortunately a lot of the effort has been wasted: it really would be a good idea to read the relevant guidelines before putting any more effort into this. Many of the "references" are not references at all, but just links to web sites mentioned in the article. A reference is a source which confirms statements made in the article: for example the sentence "She is currently featured on Wayne Jone's photography site after working with him on many projects including a shoot for Miami based swimwear label LOOK Swimwear" has a "reference" attached to it: this should be a link to somewhere where we are told that Winton is currently featured on Jone's site after working with him for LOOK swimwear etc. In fact the "reference" is simply a link to the LOOK swimwear site, and tells us nothing about Winton. Even those references which actually link to pages where Winton appears do not establish notability: we need independent sources, not just links to the web pages of companies she has worked for. We even have a "reference" which is a link to Kate Winton's personal Facebook page. A Facebook page is not a reliable source, as anyone can set one up and write anything they choose. It is also unlikely to be an independent source. Finally, we have "fellow B&G contestant jeremy reading has a wikipedia so why cant kate?" Firstly, the article Jeremy Reading is tagged as possibly not being notable, so maybe it too should be and will be deleted. Secondly, even if this were not so, the existence of one Wikipedia article is never justification for another: it is possible that neither should exist, and it is also possible that one subject has received more coverage than the other, establishing more notability. WELUVKATE has evidently put quite a bit of work into trying to save this article, but unfortunately without much awareness of Wikipedia's guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete She's doing a job and doesn't appear to have done anything particularly noteworthy. Also, per JamesBWatson - a masterly exposition, in my opinion. (No, I'm not a sock...) Peridon (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment ive added some more reffereances which are articles printed about kate, is this what you need? WELUVKATE (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not really. The only source you have mentioned that comes close to being reliable is the AdelaideNow website link (here) which seems to be more of a lighthearted opinion piece rather than an actual article, and in any case only mentions Winton in passing. The relevant guideline for you to read is WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Notability - this will explain what sources can and cannot be used, and what Wikipedia means by "notable". If, as you mention, she is about to become the host of a TV show, this will most likely qualify her for notability, but only once she actually hosts the show. Until then my suggestion would be to let the article be deleted. There is nothing stopping you from re-creating it if and when Winton achieves notability. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete References not sufficient to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2010 (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.