Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Winton
The only arguments for keeping have been put forward by WELUVKATE, who would be well advised to read Wikipedia's otability|notability guideline, because the arguments given do not relate to the guideline at all. Also the guideline on |reliable sources and the policy on OT|what Wikipedia is not should be helpful. No, appearing on covers does not constitute notability, and nor does having a facebook group: I could easily set up a facebook group for myself if I had nothing better to do with my time: that would not make me notable, either by Wikipedia's criteria or otherwise. "She does Adelaide proud and should be recognised on wikipedia" is not a reason either: Wikipedia does not exist to confer recognition on deserving people. Likewise "She's also trying to raise breast cancer awareness amongst other things, so i think you should leave her page be": Wikipedia does not exist to promote causes, no matter how good those causes are. And so it goes on with the other reasons listed ... Finally, "i have added as many referances as i can for tonight". Unfortunately a lot of the effort has been wasted: it really would be a good idea to read the relevant guidelines before putting any more effort into this. Many of the "references" are not references at all, but just links to web sites mentioned in the article. A reference is a source which confirms statements made in the article: for example the sentence "She is currently featured on Wayne Jone's photography site after working with him on many projects including a shoot for Miami based swimwear label LOOK Swimwear" has a "reference" attached to it: this should be a link to somewhere where we are told that Winton is currently featured on Jone's site after working with him for LOOK swimwear etc. In fact the "reference" is simply a link to the LOOK swimwear site, and tells us nothing about Winton. Even those references which actually link to pages where Winton appears do not establish notability: we need ''independent'' sources, not just links to the web pages of companies she has worked for. We even have a "reference" which is a link to Kate Winton's personal Facebook page. A Facebook page is not a reliable source, as anyone can set one up and write anything they choose. It is also unlikely to be an independent source. Finally, we have "fellow B&G contestant jeremy reading has a wikipedia so why cant kate?" Firstly, the article Jeremy Reading is tagged as possibly not being notable, so maybe it too should be and will be deleted. Secondly, even if this were not so, the existence of one Wikipedia article is never justification for another: it is possible that neither should exist, and it is also possible that one subject has received more coverage than  the other, establishing more notability. WELUVKATE has evidently put quite a bit of work into trying to save this article, but unfortunately without much awareness of Wikipedia's guidelines
— User:JamesBWatson, 16:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:RS||WP:NOT (Wikipedia:Notability)