Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Pack

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Pack

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

At some level I wish we could keep all articles on female doctors. However, Pack is not a female doctor as far as I can tell, and clearly no where near being a notable one. She was in her 3rd year of undergraduate studies at UC Irvine in 2012. She might be in her 3rd year of medical school, although the interview I found with her from 2014 in a totally non-reliable source did not seem to suggest she was in medical school, it mainly spent time posting pictures of her in bikinis. Her role as Miss California USA is not enough to be notable, and her role in America's next top model, does not seem to cut it either. Her modeling career to date also does not seem to rise to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We do have this [1] from October 2013 that suggests that Pack had not yet graduated from UC Irvine at that point. So she would not have started medical school until 2014 at the earliest. More to the point it is the level of coverage we are getting, and despite its attempts to say that Pack is a notable model, nothing it says suggests to me she is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; clearly notable. Honestly, I question whether nominator has done a single Google search of the subject. Just the first page of the first link under "Find Sources" gives:
- Model Natalie Pack's Fomo-Inducing Instagram Feed Has It All | GQ That's from 2016
- Instagram Girl of the Week: Natalie Pack - Maxim That's from 2014
- Guess model Natalie Pack looks like Cindy Crawford, but wants to be herself Fox News, 2015.

I haven't even looked at the subsequent pages, these are three non-trivial articles by three national publications, over three years. And she was Miss California 2012. And she was on America's Next Top Model, a national TV show. Honestly: "I wish we could keep all articles on female doctors"? She's not a doctor, she's a model. Sure, she doesn't meet notability standards as a notable doctor. Well, neither does Barack Obama meet notability standards as a lawyer. Strangely enough, not everyone becomes notable as what they went for university for. That's not a reason to delete an article about someone who clearly meets WP:GNG. --GRuban (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As noted by GRuban, passes notability with the three sources he's provided. Nominator (who's created over 2 dozen boilerplate AfDs in the past week) is too focused on the occupation of the subject and not enough on the sourcing of the article. p b p 12:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the information provided by GRuban. The coverage is there, and with exposure on ANTM, this to me would be a cinch to meet WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above PageantUpdater (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons, and the examples posted by GRuban.Glenn Francis (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GRuban's sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above keep comments, plus a suggestion, given the nominator's boilerplate machine-gun AfD nominations of all beauty contestants -- nominations which cause the community a lot of work and checking -- and nominator AfDing articles without an ounce of checking beforehand, that administrators restrict his power to propose AfDs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2016 (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.