Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damaris Lewis

: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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

=[[Damaris Lewis]]=

:{{la|Damaris Lewis}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Damaris Lewis}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Damaris Lewis}})

Non notable model. Some covers, some works, just that. Damiens.rf 13:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

C)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: By what definition is that, Tony? I don't see any guideline explicitly giving a presumption of notability for models in SI, and I'd sure be grateful if you could link to it. Beyond that, the whole underpinning of notability criteria beyond the GNG is that the criteria establish "presumptive" notability, in so far that (for example) someone who plays in the National Hockey League almost certainly has had articles written about him in the mainstream press. Ms. Lewis certainly appears on a lot of modeling sites, Flickr, social media, blogs and the like, but that hasn't translated into any coverage of her in substantial detail on any source, in the year-plus since the issue in which she appeared. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG.  Ravenswing  19:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Granted, there aren't many sources on Lewis that I can find after a (lazy) search, but I'd say the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue annually receives so much coverage when it comes out that appearing in it as a model should confer notability, per criteria #1 of WP:ENT. There are few things a model can do that increases their public profile as much as this gig. If the article was filled with extraneous information w/o sourcing, I might have more of an issue, but appearing in the SISI warrants at least a stub IMO, as the article is now.  Mbinebri  talk ← 01:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep per TtT and Mbinebri. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Also... articles on the SISI are often of [http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/35241896/ns/today-today_fashion_and_beauty/ this variety], offering coverage on several models at a time and establishing notability, as significant coverage guidelines don't require the subject to be the sole focus of the source. A lot of times these articles don't pop up in standard searches, which makes it look like the models don't receive coverage for appearing in SI when they do.  Mbinebri  talk ← 04:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Your example of "this variety" is a very humdrum article at MSNBC. I had thought that MSNBC material was spidered by Google; why would it not pop up in standard searches? Has this person been written up in MSNBC, or anywhere else? -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Seems unremarkable, and nobody has yet dredged up any infotainment material about her. Still, I await enlightenment by Mbinebri. -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Appearing in the SI Swimsuit Issue establishes notability. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mbinebri writes: Granted, there aren't many sources on Lewis that I can find after a (lazy) search, but I'd say the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue annually receives so much coverage when it comes out that appearing in it as a model should confer notability. ¶ A large percentage of the International Herald Tribune (which I happen often to see) is devoted to fashion and modeling. (Fashion is thus unlike any mere art or science -- it's up there with sports and business.) The IHT is merely the internationally distributed version of the NYT, which is indexed by Google. Google News, which of course indexes not merely the NYT but a great number of infotainment sources, has a grand total of zero (0) hits for Lewis. ¶ I then wondered about this "Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue". (I'd never heard of such a thing before encountering it in Wikipedia, but I'll happily admit to ignorance in many areas of human endeavor.) As I've seen mentions of "Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit 2010" etc, I'm not entirely sure of the correct or best-googled variation on "Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue". I therefore looked up the very inclusive ' "sports illustrated" swimsuit' in Google News. [http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22sports+illustrated%22+swimsuit This search] got "about 87" hits. That's not many. And they're a sorry lot. Here are the titles of what happened to be the top three when I looked: "'Jersey Shore' Cast To Present At 2010 'VH1 Divas'", "Tom Brady Should Let Nature Take Its Hairy Course", "Week 48: Brad Paisley, Guy's Guy". So I see no reason for the assertion that there's lots of coverage in the infotainment industry of the "Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue", however titled. ¶ Lewis may perhaps become somebody whose accomplishments are discussed somewhere. Were that to happen, she'd merit an article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The Google News search cited above only covers the last 30 days. Given that the issue is published in February, it's not too surprising that coverage of the issue in November is limited. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=nws%3A1%2Car%3A1&q=%22sports+illustrated%22+swimsuit&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= The same search in the Google News Archive search] generates 14,300 results. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah. Whoops! All right, this Sports Illustrated swimsuit thing does indeed get a lot of coverage. I eat some of my words. However, her appearance within it doesn't seem to have got much attention, and the other assertions in the article about her, however dutifully sourced, seem very humdrum. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. [http://www.vogue.it/en/vogue-black/new-faces/2010/03/damaris-lewis Vogue has a blurb] about her. Although the SI swimsuit issues in themselves meet N, I don't think a snap of someone wearing a swimsuit in one of those layouts brings forth a BLP of encyclopedic notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete based on the current lack of independent reliable sources discussing the subject, but without prejudice to allowing the article to be re-created if such sources become available later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: per TtT and Mbinebri. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment With some of the press mentioned above, I have expanded the article and it should now pass.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep Arguably just about passes muster with the newly added sources, even though they're only interviews rather than wholly independent reports on her and her modelling. GDallimore (Talk) 18:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep per GDallimore. The fact that independent journalists have chosen to interview her makes a case for notability but I would like to see more journalistic articles about her. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not the greatest of articles but the interviews seem to do just enough to meet WP:BIO. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 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.