Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Pack (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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Natalie Pack
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and California. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Beauty pageants.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are 12 sources which would satisfy significant coverage of WP:GNG, from checking the sources they would seem reliable -- StarryNightSky11   ☎  23:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The majority of the sources would need to be removed if the article is kept as they are nowhere near to meeting WP:RS.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep – Though the refs are subject to link rot, they include articles by the LA times and HuffPost, both reliable per RSP, whose main focus is Pack. small jars 17:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep While existing refs could be improved, that is not unique to this page, as there are other pages which experience link rot too. The lack of concrete reasoning by the OP and the claim that the "majority of the sources would need to be removed if the article is kept" is silly, as Ponyo claims. There are citations for the LA Times, Huff Post, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Additionally while this may be a reliable source, I believe that Sports Illustrated is a reliable source as is GQ, and PRABook, to name a few.Historyday01 (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. She's notable. The sources could have been better, but it's not worth removing. Perhaps some sort of template that encourages article improvement would make sense. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2023 (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.