Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Michelle Marsh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wiki143:Articles for deletion
Revision as of 14:35, 23 April 2006 by imported>Cydebot (Robot: Fixing up links to AfD templates.)
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so the article defaults to "keep". Joyous 18:21, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Michelle Marsh

She really is a lovely girl with some nice topless photos on her website. I don't think that makes her notable. DCEdwards1966 04:12, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete RoySmith 04:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Wyss 06:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The resume on her website [1] shows quite some notable modelling jobs (with notable papers and magazines and numerous appearances in notable British TV shows). I tend to say keep here, but it does need desperate expansion. Mgm|(talk) 09:18, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete In the case of nudie-magazine models, I would think that only a few at the very top of that field deserve inclusion in an encyclopedia. Marilyn Monroe: yes. Bettie Page: maybe. This gal: not a chance. Starblind 10:37, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Betty Page: maybe"!? What planet are you from? GRider\talk 22:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 10:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, borderline notability, needs expansion though (no pun intended). Megan1967 01:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. She is clearly notable. Listing shows US-centric bias.Dr Zen 06:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am from the US. That has nothing to do with the listing. I would not list Jordan/Katie Price for VfD. I would list most of the thousands of US models were they to have their own articles. DCEdwards1966 20:44, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable model and just as worthy of an article as the numerous big-bust pornstars who have their own pages. Needs expansion (the article, not the model... ;-) ). 23skidoo 18:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, appearing on television and newspapers is enough. Alfio 22:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have no problem with this. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 22:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. She is a model. That means: (a) she is paid to pose for photographers; (b) the photographs are published. If not both of these are true, she is either an aspiring model, or a very unsuccessful model, Are we all saying that if one's occupation is "model", and one isn't a failure at it, one is notable enough for the Wikipedia? Or do we want to say that if your claim to notability is success in your profession, that you have to be well-known and very successful at it? My opinion is that we should have articles about "top" models, "super-models", etc, those whose names are known to the public. And not Miss Marsh. --BM 19:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 04:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Michelle who? Weaponofmassinstruction 08:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Deathphoenix 03:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I echo "Who?", and I'm definitely not US-centric. The article fails to demonstrate notability. Having blonde hair and blue eyes are hardly notable characteristics. Remove that, and the only other facts left are her place and date of birth and that she's one of the many page 3 models that there have been over the years. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a modelling directory. Uncle G 16:07, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth/expansion. GRider\talk 22:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Into what? If there's anything to be said about the woman apart from date and place of birth, hair and eye colour, and occupation, please tell us what it is. If there isn't, why should Wikipedia have an article on her just in case she becomes notable in the future? Or are you just voting that way merely in order to have the opportunity to make an "organic expansion" joke? Uncle G 17:27, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need articles for every model, page 3 girl, or playboy bunny. Not encyclopedic. Gamaliel 00:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Porn is mainstream now. And even softporn. Salazar 00:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • You're confused as to the nature of the debate here. No-one has proposed deletion on the grounds of pornography. The issue is whether, as one of thousands of such page 3 models, there is anything notable about this particular one. Samantha Fox is notable, for example. Michelle Marsh simply ... isn't. Uncle G 17:27, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cute but not notable. Carrp 15:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Marsh&oldid=1068979"