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 delete. Tone 10:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Baggott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Promotionally-toned article, has always been like this. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE or any other notability guideline. Mostly primary-sourced to material by the subject; the sole third-party source is a passing mention in the Guardian. Tagged for inadequate sourcing for five years without action; sourcing was not up to standard at any time before this. WP:BEFORE shows material by the subject, but nothing in RSes about the subject up to the standards of WP:BLP. David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Difficult one. Existing article is backed by promo refs and listings. She is often quoted by publications^[1][2][3] and Superdrug have signed her up for a range of products.^[4] Could argue WP:ENT point 2, or WP:Basic if rewritten and referenced better. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given her work at being a pundit, I was surprised at the lack of actual coverage about her. This suggests it's promotion on her part more than more organic noteworthiness. In any case, if the present article was cut to RSes it'd be one line citing the Guardian passing mention. Basically - is there even source material for an article? - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Depending how widely-seen that Olay commercial was, she might be notable. Writing for magazines doesn't make you notable. I'm leaning towards delete at this point...Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pretty widely seen! She was the face for nearly a year on TV and Web.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • so did this generate RS coverage of Nadine Baggott herself? - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing here is ever close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Current sources doesn't meet WP:BASIC. Pilean (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Agree the sources aren't up to standard. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RS/others above, and WP:GNG. We cant find good sources because she hasn't done anything notable. Very rarely do advertising actors gain notability from doing TV commercials. I can think of the Rollover Mom and the Maytag Repair Guy, but it is a very short list. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2021 (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.