Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Goodwin

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. v/r - T P 01:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Goodwin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are included (including one from Wikipedia) but are arguably not entirely reliable. The titles of two for example: "See our new beach babe", and "Alice Goodwin gets naked!". This doesn't suggest why she is notable as opposed to other models. Cloudbound (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — frankie (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Is a current model and seems to just about be notable enough Tiller54 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only received bog-standard coverage for a model, nothing to suggest that she might be notable. Big Dom 14:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and BigDom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially per nom. There is no notability here. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is quite popular [1], avging about 1,000 views per day, which immediately tells us there is some reason for this popularity. Under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, she's arguably noteable for her large following. You can search for the many many many mentions in "new sources for men". I would feel differently if this was one of those model articles where the only link is to her own profile on modelmayhem, yes, those are rightfully deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:02, 3 November 2011 (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.