Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachael Todd


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Rachael Todd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Todd was Miss Flordia. This title alone is not enough to demonstate notability, and there is nothing in the sourcing or anything else to rise to the level of GNG. The first source is not a working link. It might, or might not, connect to a local Florida paper covering Todd's win, in some level of detail, I am not sure. The second source is to an article on her from the University of Central Florida paper. We generally do not consider college papers sources that are enough to add towards a student at that college passing GNG. The remaining sources are here website for her company, clearly not indepdent of her, her facebook page, not useable to add towards GNG, and an IMDb listing for her for participation in Miss Amwerica (which as a state winning contestant is not notable) and her role in Bridget's Sexist Beaches. IMDb is not a reliable source, clearly not useable to show notability. Bridget's Sexdiest Beaches redirects to the host, Bridget Marquant, and the one line reference to it in the article on her ends with a citation needed tag. Beyond that, Todd only appeared in one episode of the TV show. Like all the other characters she appeared as herself, for whatever that is worth. I did find this connected with Todd being a cover model for Planet Beach Spray and Spa, but it is hardly a reliable source let alone indepdent of her. Her Linkedin page here lists multiple roles in advertising and modeling in a passing way, but that is not a reliable source showing any are notable. Here's a mention to her coming in 12th in Tennessee for a Jet Set Mag competition, which seems so low it is not worth mentioning. I was able to find a page from a modeling agency she worked with here. There do not appear to be any sources that show her notable as either an actress or a model, and her winning Miss Florida is just not enough to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Wrong forum There is no IAR argument here, and as per WP:Deletion policy and WP:Deletion policy, content disputes should be moved to the talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Stuff in the nomination like  ""Miss Flordia," "demonstate," "indepdent," "Miss Amwerica," and "Sexdiest Beaches" make it hard to take this seriously. Edison (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Her own website lists her accomplishments as Miss Florida, yoga instructor, certified health coach, Certified in Positive Psychology, and model. Model would probably be the best path to notability, but I haven't found any evidence she is there. Becoming Miss Florida in 2009 is not enough on its own. MB 01:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this a WP:IAR argument? If so, what is it?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no IAR appeal here. Relevant parts of WP:V and WP:N are alluded to but not specifically named. Per WP:V, the subject's own self-published website cannot support claims of notability. Per WP:N, WP:notability requires verifiable evidence, which is lacking here. From there, the editor named the most relevant notability guidelines, which the subject appears to fail. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is a guideline, whereas WP:Deletion policy includes the alternatives to deletion that are not optional in an argument for a WP:DEL8 deletion. There is an out, to keep this as a deletion discussion, which is to invoke IAR...but if you've correctly interpreted this editor, "[t]here is no IAR appeal here."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ATD is not a mandate for endless procedure. "If an article can be improved" depends on the availability of reliable source coverage. Or to put it more bluntly, you can't polish a turd. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Among other things, Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Please also see WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Again, notability is the guideline we follow most of the time to support WP:NOT. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If these "we" viewpoint(s) represent solid arguments, why the argument to excrement? The WP:NOTBURO point is a viewpoint that WP:ATD is established policy to be rebutted, but curiously WP:NOTBURO also brings in a WP:IAR element, even while previous comments have said that other editors are not making the IAR argument. So there is no consensus for IAR.  As for WP:NOT, as far as WP:Deletion policy, WP:NOT arguments are a DEL-REASON of WP:DEL14. A review of WP:IINFO suggests no visible relation to this discussion, as the four main points there are:
 * Summary-only descriptions of works.
 * Lyrics databases.
 * Excessive listings of unexplained statistics.
 * Exhaustive logs of software updates.
 * WP:NOTDIRECTORY also appears to be a WP:VAGUEWAVE:
 * Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).
 * Genealogical entries.
 * The White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic.
 * Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business.
 * Sales catalogues.
 * Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y".
 * Simple listings without context information.
 * I checked the article history and the talk page, and for the six years of that history there is no record of anyone with concerns about the notability of this topic, much less concerns that the topic should be deleted. The correct way for the community to deal with this issue is to remove it from an improper forum, as the only reason this is here is to get it deleted against WP:Deletion policy and without making an IAR argument.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- clearly non notable subject and a A7 material with trivia such as "Todd was vice president of membership for the Kappa Delta sorority and a member of the Delta Epsilon Iota and Rho Lambda honor societies" (seriously?). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lack of non-trivial RS coverage to pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Winning a state-level beauty pageant does not rise to the level of WP:NMODEL/WP:NACTOR. Neither does the subject's acting and modelling career without non-trivial acknowledgement by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2017 (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.