Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbi van der Putten

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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie van der Putten

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

Notability Mehmit (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 20. Snotbot t • c » 08:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On a quick look for news, Google, etc I see a number of sources that look good, and ongoing (although not in great quantity) news coverage between 2008-2012. (This does not appear in Google News, btw) Not in-depth, but ongoing (not all in English though). While I don't really know much about models, Debbie van der Putten has notability in the disabled world as one of the very few disabled models (other than Aimee Mullins to receive ongoing coverage and publicity, although obviously not as much as say, Kate, Naomi or Gisele. Unusually, the Google results are not utterly swamped with non-RS as they so often are for other models,which makes it easier to spot some other RS such as 1, 2. She does seem notable to me on the basis that she is often interviewed for disability websites and magazines and has also received some coverage in independent news sources. If notability is the only reason for the nom, then this can be resolved by properly referencing and tidying up the article. Mabalu (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per what appears to be an apparent lack of source searching prior to nomination, as suggested at WP:BEFORE, section D. The first page of the Google News link above provides several reliable sources comprised of significant coverage about this person, who clearly passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Some articles include: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 07:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and snowball close - The subject clearly meets notability. The fact that the article is badly written and referenced is not a valid reason to delete, it can easily be fixed. Roger (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2012 (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.