Deletion of Braeden Wright

Comment: I see plenty of secondary sources to make him |notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Some references may cover . But I think the article requires some trimming of the promotional-style content and pruning of weak promotional sources such as Spotify and Apple Music
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Clearly PASSES the , and especially the . This person has a fully dedicated in-depth interview and profile in Forbes Magazine-- an independent and secondary source with a circulation of almost 1 MILLION, and 71.1 MILLION unique visitors, and also is interviewed and profiled in OUT Magazine, with a magazine circulation of 203,000. This is no small feat of notability in its own right, besides considering the subject very obviously passing the  criteria in addition. The model is featured on Models.com, the most important and critical source in the fashion industry in ranking the notability of models that there is. To even have a dedicated profile on that site (which is an independent and secondary news source-- models do not control or have any sway on getting a ranking into the site) is proof in itself of being of the most notable models in the entire industry. His profile also shows he was Calvin Klein exclusive in 2015 (the most prestigious brand contract that can be bestowed on a male model), has also walked the runway for Versace, Ralph Lauren, and others. He has also been in ad campaigns for Tom Ford and Steve Madden. These are major and starring involvements in almost all of the top major brand productions in the fashion industry-- especially those that are seen as particularly notable for male models. All of this is very clearly demonstrated in the subject's client work on his Models.com page-- and quite convincingly proves his notability as one of the top male models in the world, in addition to his general notability proven by the Forbes, OUT, and Man of Metropolis in-depth profiles about the subject. To say the model doesn't meet the  guidelines is clearly showing a lack of knowledge of the modelling industry and perhaps even a lack of fair examination of the sources already provided in the article before making any judgement or criticism. Simply stating something does not prove that statement as fact, without any evidence to backup the argument. I believe this article is of great interest to those in the modelling and fashion community especially, and should most definitely be kept to further enhance Wikipedia and its archival of the history of fashion and culture
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NMODEL||WP:NMODEL||WP:NMODEL)

Comment: Clearly fails the , , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MUSICBIO||WP:NMODEL)

Comment: WP:PROMO|Promotion for non notable individual. Falls short of  and . Referencing is passing, primary, PR or non mentions. The Forbes piece is by a contributor and not by a staff member. It is not under the same editorial control and as such is not a reliable source
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NMODEL)

Comment: After much input from other editors, I have taken it upon myself to be bold and trim a significant amount of fat from the article-- as recommended by users in this thread who voted "Keep". I trimmed nearly half of the Music Career section that could have been seen as overly promotional in wording, a possibly overly promotional sounding sentence from the Modelling Career section, and the Personal Life section altogether-- as another editor had already aptly and correctly removed the citation used for that information (an Instagram post that ''disqualifyingly referenced a third party'', even though blog posts published by the subject of Biographical articles '''are permitted per Wiki guidelines''' as long as they follow certain rules-- one of which that particular citation did break .) I think these changes and those already made by other editors has greatly improved things. '''''Thank you to everyone for your input-- I think the article has been much improved by this process. Much love and cheers x
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:SELFSOURCE)

Comment: Hi ShelbyMarion-- I agree that the subject deserves equal assessment as a fashion model especially. I just wrote a lengthy comment above yours that goes into great detail to explain how the subject clearly passes  and would greatly appreciate it if you could read it in full and weigh your opinion accordingly. I hope you will find that the arguments I have raised satisfy your concerns and all of Wikipedia's written rules on demonstrating  of the subject. Also-- the New York times article I provided is a great read in itself! Hope you enjoy and thanks for participating. Much love x
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NMODEL||WP:NMODEL)