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. Clear consensus, even the biggest opposer The Gnome changed his opinion to keep (the last post of the AfD). Another good WP:HEY case. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisalla Montenegro[edit]

Lisalla Montenegro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A BLP which lacks significant reliable coverage to pass GNG. Her modeling career does not appear notable considering the lack of attention to it in sources, and the only additional pieces I found are in the context of her marriage to retired major leaguer C.J. Wilson. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably KEEP. Coverage in this [1] ( gNews search sure looks like this is a simple WP:BEFORE fail. Merry Christmas to all, And to all, a good night.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, as I already said, the sources are in the context of her marriage to Wilson (NOTINHERITED). Please stop assuming bad faith if you will not take the time to read the sources. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article was poorly sourced when nominated. I did a WP:HEYMANN upgrade. Coverage of Montenegro as a model (Mayballine, Victoria's Secret,) and as half of a "celebrity couple", in articles like "Athlete - Celebrity Couples" in Sports Illustrated, and "Angels pitcher C.J. Wilson and supermodel wife Lisalla Montenegro buy Corona del Mar home for $2.37 million". WP:NOTINHERITED does not prevent a notable individual from having a page, it reads: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people... can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." Some spouses are famous just for who they married (Jeanette Rubio.) Montenegro, however, is famous both for her modeling career and for being half of a "celebrity couple." Bottom line: if the coverage passes GNG, it doesn't really matter how fame found you. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Are you sure about that, E.M.Gregory? If that were the case, why do we have in Wikipedia specific category criteria for notability, such as criteria for actors? If a subject passes WP:ACTOR then it surely passes WP:GNG! After all, everything in Wikipedia must be based on sources. The only reasonable state of affairs is that WP:GNG on its own may not suffice. It's actually written in the very text of WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In so many words, if fame found you, that on its own may not be enough; and how it found you actually does matter. -The Gnome (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of coverage thanks to E.M.Gregory, definitely meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is practically nothing out there except news about subject's marriage to a celebrity, a clear case of fame by association. The wording of the relevant policy states that individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Here, the subject is written up and talked about exclusively in texts about her marriage to a celebrity. Not about her but about the marriage. No independent, GNG-level notaibility. In sum : She fails WP:NMODEL. -The Gnome (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fact check The Gnome's assertion that "the subject is written up and talked about exclusively in texts about her marriage to a celebrity. Not about her but about the marriage" is flatly untrue. Among the sources on the page days before The Gnome's comment are profiles published years before Montenegro met her ballplayer husband: Teen Vogue : Meet Maybelline New York's Newest Face, Lisalla Montenegro, Glamour: Meet Lisalla Montenegro, The Newest Victoria's Secret PINK Model!, and the rest of the sources in subhead "Career" on the page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, WP:HEY, I added a little more copy and some additional sources, particularly on the 2010 Maybelline campaign - several years before she met her celebrity spouse.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand corrected. The sources cited by E.M.Gregory above somehow were missed by my own search and are evidently reliable. My suggestion must change accordingly to Keep since subject satisfies WP:NMODEL. -The Gnome (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 31 December 2018 (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.