Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Barnard


 * 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. Even the people arguing to keep couldn't work up much enthusiasm. There's some RS show up my search results. is pretty meaningless; if you found some sources, share them with us, so they can be evaluated. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Natasha Barnard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has one source, a facebook page. Beyond this, I do not see any indicators that she would pass any notability guidelines for models. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Gbawden (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep (a weak one) There is a brief quote here, a photo of her at the NYSE, another photo shoot, there's in-depth coverage in a blog (eh) and coverage in a fan magazine and more fan magazine coverage and coverage of her and several other models doing various inane things and dubious sponsorships and the usual model-beauty-promotion crap, but she probably meets the WP:GNG although just by a tad.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: I don't think that NMODEL is met for basically one major photo shoot and a group of fan pages and blogs.  Though I know this is an OTHERSTUFF argument, I am seeing musician, academics and other folks deleted on more than this.   Montanabw (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete because having two appearances is not anywhere near enough to suggest her own notability and, at best, she's best mentioned at a lost as a whole, not for her own actual article and this is because there's no independent notability substance. SwisterTwister   talk  17:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs a bit more discussion on the sources provided. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: There's some RS show up my search results. KGirlTrucker81talk what I'm been doing 20:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. We look for coverage in reliable sources. Female models usually tend to receive coverage on a lot of fan websites (due to the male dominated internet) but many of these are user-generated content/blogs. I tend to look for significant coverage in mainstream media. I am finding mentions in a lot of articles (some of them in reliable sources), but there is not one substantial article about the subject. A photo and a brief quote does not add up to significant coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2016 (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.