Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Jones (model)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Consensus is to delete ... WP:TOOSOON might count here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hannah Jones (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, is WP:ONEEVENT, she was on a single reality/competition show. A mention on the show's article is sufficient. The majority of the article is a play by play of the show, followed by the claim that she plans to be a big model and movie star. I wish her luck, but this is not encyclopedic. -MJH (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE - Please see WP:Articles for deletion/Kiara Belen where 30 related articles have been nominated.--Nixie9 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP editors, please weigh in - an anxious fan of this subject has repeatedly removed the AfD template from the article. They apparently want a decision quickly.--Nixie9 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have requested temporary protection for the page. Unfortunately, Hannah Jones has a very common name which is impossible to search for successfully even with keywords, although a number of contestants do have articles, not just the winner. I looked at a couple at random (Amanda Swafford and Melrose Bickerstaff), who did show additional notability, though Melrose's is a bit borderline. Googling, all I am finding is material related to the TV show. I chose a random group of four names from the ANTM template to compare this article to (Samantha Potter, Analeigh Tipton, Isis King, and Allison Harvard), and all showed rather more notability and coverage than Hannah - the weakest one, Samantha Potter, had done a couple of documented little cameo appearances in The Big Bang Theory and a music video, so fair enough. As Hannah doesn't appear to have gone on to do anything of the sort (yet) I am leaning towards delete, but holding back for now to see what others say. Mabalu (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If she makes her mark, the page can be created then.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - She already made her mark. and why does Brittani Kline she didn't even continue modelling. So Hannah Jones will be kept. --Missjenkins (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please find reliable sources to show that Ms. Jones has indeed "made her mark". I looked at Brittani Kline and she won her series - the winners of each show are notable so her article is valid, regardless of whether or not she is still modelling. Mabalu (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning delete/comment After some careful deliberation and searching, I did find some sources, not all the best, the best probably being 1, and though this is a blog, it is the official one for Austin Fashion Week. However, in the course of looking at ANTM nominations, I have seen that some of the girls continue to get coverage/name drops/references for quite a number of years after the show. For now, it is probably WP:TOOSOON for Hannah Jones, but my spider sense tells me that she will go on to do a bit more and achieve sufficient notability then. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so until then, although she sounds a nice girl, I have to say I lean towards deleting it for now. Mabalu (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Guys seriously for me i think we should just get this over with. --GTPMF (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Mabalu. She's just not there yet (as to notability). GregJackP Boomer! 15:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How about Alexandria Everett? she already made her mark in all-stars she should be the one who has a page though. Hannah on the other hand she is not there yet although 3 of her reference are confirmed while the others are NOT. --GTPMF (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - and i forgot Missjenkins is out of her/his mind by putting repetitively that she has a film career? i followed her in Tumblr and she doesn't even mention about movie careers but rather than modelling and runaway shows. --GTPMF (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We accomplish nothing by attacking other editors.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.