Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixie Geldof
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Speedy keep. Chris (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pixie Geldof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the notability guidance. If we put aside having famous parents (not a rationale for notability) then we have evidence of a modelling assignment for a clothes store. There are no sources to demonstrate any historical impact on the field of modelling or other media interest not primarily based on her being Bob Geldof's daughter. Fæ (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Almost 1,500 hits at Google News archives.[1] Articles like these[2][3][4][5][6] lead me to conclude that, like it or not, and however she first got into the public eye, she's now a notable model. So goes the world.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Arxiloxos. Notability is not inherited, but she's not the first to take that headstart and translate it into her own independent notability evidence by sources such as those cited by Arxiloxos.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly a fair bit of celeb-notability, could use some developing and expansion. Viewing figures of around 5000 a month (not a reason to keep, just saying like). Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Tabloid fodder, but famous. Chris (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2010 (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.