Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Vyent


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Louise Vyent

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails GNG Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If he can't have it his way, then he wants it deleted. Wikipedia is an entity for everyone to edit. Try to nominate Wishology for deletion too. 74.101.6.158 (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Stricken comment from blocked sock. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I can't help it, but the sock has a point here. Destroying articles because a sock is working on it, is not the way. Assuming that everyone working on the article is a sockpuppet, as you did with me, goes too far. Night of the Big Wind  talk  13:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, I never said YOU were a sock. I made an inadverdant undo.  I apologize. As for the AFD, it has nothing to do with the sock, but rather the notability.  You made a somewhat rationale case to keep below, and did make some improvements to the article.  I still am unconvinced this passes GNG.  Consenus will decide.  Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:BIO, appeared on one magazine cover of Vogue but not much else. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: She appears to have had a period of fame in the early 1990s, I don't want people to overlook that based on the current poor article.  I noted the following sources,  (quote not available via source link, but is via google book search results for subject: "Louise Vyent, a striking half-Dutch, half-Surinamese model, has graced 15 covers — including Vogue's.");  (New Woman: "Louise (Vyent is her last name), this month's cover model and one of the most sought-after models in the world"); (Glamour: "Louise Vyent, for instance, right, is half Dutch, half Surinamese. Kara Young's father is white and her mother is black...");  (Ebony: "She and fellow Black models Louise Vyent and Kara Young were profiled in an article titled "The New Top Models" ") (Ebony mention 2: )--Milowent • hasspoken  12:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep She is Dutch, so notable But I think the addition of sources is a more convincing reason. The original article was bad, and I am still not proud on the present article, but I really think she is notable due to her career in the pre-Internet period.  Night of the Big Wind  talk  19:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? She is notable because she is Dutch? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read everything after the smiley, a reason is given that addresses WP:BIO; the smiley shows that the Dutch part is a joke. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Having reflected on the articles I and others found, it does appear she crossed the threshold of notability. If there is some content debate over what should be in the article (there was some edit about whether her children should be mentioned i think) let's resolve that through editing, not deletion.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article should be maintained. Ms. Vyent reamins active as a model, she is continuing her career as a photographer, and she has many new projects in her photography career "in the pipe."  She is a member of a group of Montclair, NJ artists and she may be having a special exhibition soon - but that latter point is speculation for now.  Nevertheless, she is a highly respected person in Montclair, and it's not her fault that she's not as well-known as her fellow Montclair resident Stephen Colbert! (Please keep it, as more biographical data on her will utlimately be available.)-- Captain Caveman • hasspoken  03:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * please provide sources to back your claims. thanks. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * lol, you claimed she appeared on one cover when it was actually at least 15.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If the sources exist, why not add them? That would end this AfD fairly easily.  Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable 80s model and still has an active dual career of modelling and photography. UnderGODsHelp (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — UnderGODsHelp (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet. Calabe1992 22:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is lousy and its sourcing is inadequate. However, articles like this NYTimes piece are written in a way that indicate her name would be recognizable to a general audience, and she is discussed often enough in pieces concerning the relative success/marketability of female models of color. Seems to be a case of limited online accessibility to coverage rather than lack of coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said. I'll move to keep, and tag the article appropriately. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Keep, if there is still any doubt. A cursory look at Google Books reveals lots of articles from the late 1980s that argue the subject was of historic importance in truly integrating fashion modeling. Tons of sources, from Ebony and Jet to NY Times to Richard Avedon shoots. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * keep - why is this still here?Marikafragen (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2012 (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.