Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camille Kostek

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. Tone 18:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Kostek

Camille Kostek (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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I’m surprised someone actually created an article for her when her notability right now is being Gronkowski’s girlfriend and a Patriots cheerleader. The sources don’t help the case either—it relies on Instagram posts. If she gets independent notability in the future then someone could redo the article. Trillfendi (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She won't cure cancer, but she easily passes
  wp:n. Markvs88 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment How so? “Rob Gronkowski’s girlfriend” isn’t notability. Notability is not inherited. Notwithstanding the fact that SI Swimsuit appearance is not enough for NMODEL itself. None of the sources for her hosting endeavors are reliable or independent. Trillfendi (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because after reading the article and the five highly reliable sources (

People Magazine, New Haven Register, plus the two below) I now know far more about her than I would ever care to. (Fair disclosure: I hate the Patriots!) Further several of the other sources (Fox61, Dune Jewelry, Fashionweekonline and Instagram) show active in her career, so the article does not attempt inherit notability. As Captain Eek mentions below, she is easy to find in other legit sources such as the Boston Herald, and here she is in Maxim...[1]. The Wiki-ruler is for two independent, third party sources with significant coverage. This article more than has that. She's definitely notable. Not going to cure cancer, but notable. Markvs88 (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Someone doesn't have to have appeared in the NYTimes to be notable, but shes made the Boston Herald – which is more than just a hometown paper. There certainly seems to be notable independent coverage of her, and a significant number of sources. Appears to pass
  WP:BIO, and the page doesn't appear to have any BLP issues. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Actually, since the angle covered by the Boston Herald was about a Patriots' cheerleader making an SI appearance, that pretty much is hometown coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When do we start purging all NYT, NY Post and Daily News citations from every article that takes place within the
      New York Metropolitan Area, then? Markvs88 (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep She did get attention because of who she is/was dating but if you look into the sources (as in click on them and read them), only a handful of them mention her boyfriend, and mostly as an afterthought. Almost all of her modelling work, especially her SI Swimsuit win (the magazine's first social media-based open casting call), was all about her. I get it, most know her as the dude's girl but she does have significant work and notability herself to merit a page. Maxen Embry (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Markvs88. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously as per her own well documented contributions, and as noted above..Netherzone (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. per the comments by
  WP:RS which I would say we have here. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 17:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep A clear keep as per Markvs88 and Maxen Embry. Z359q (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2019 (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.