Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracey Walker

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. Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Walker

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

OK, I'm very happy to be proved wrong, but I'm calling hoax on this - or at least high level of exaggeration.

The article will have us believe that Tracey Walker was the first ever internet supermodel, with fansites and 2.5 billion downloads. The problem is there's not evidence of this whatsoever.

traceywalker.com redirect to a facebook search
The "McCormick Agency" draws me a blank except here [1] - where it is indeed connected with "SpokesModels.Com" - but if you click on the link, you are back at facebook
There is a myspace page [2] which does seem to reflect the article's assertions, but offers nothing verifiable

As I say, my biggest problem is that internet supermodels don't tend to disappear from the internet, and THE first one would surely have more presence.Scott Mac 21:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The facebook page details a few notable claims. http://www.facebook.com/search.php?q=tracey+walker&type=users#!/profile.php?id=541889179 Personally I don't think enough independent reports could be found to assert a reportable level of notability, shes from Indiana perhaps theres more in local reports. Recently been creating online avators, albeit for a few notable peoples/companies. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CV is impressive - the problem is it doesn't check out. [3] [4] [5] [6]. The only real presence is on usergenerated sites like myspace, facebook, and wikipedia.--Scott Mac 21:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, interesting person but not even if the detail is correct unless they are reported in independent wiki reliable locations, then she isn't wikikpedia notable for a bio. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence (sources) of notability, BLP is potential magnet for trouble. →Stani Stani 22:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Half of the extraordinary claims in the article are not credible. The rest is supported only by user-generated sources. If this were even partially true, some reliable source would take notice. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotioal piece with no reliable sources. Interesting to note that a 2009 WebWire piece tells how Tracy is now involved in internet network marketing.[7] And another PR Web piece from 2007 states how this former "internet model" is "making her mark" in the internet.[8] Apparently the only one interested in promoting her, is herself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: most probably a vanity page. I tried to check claims but all I can find is internet marketing as above mentioned by MichaelQSchmidt and in any case no online RS whatsoever it citing her; which is very suspicious for a claimed "Internet supermodel". --Cyclopia ^talk 12:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails verifiability. Jll (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic example of the difference between mere assertions of notability, and having evidence of notability. (Besides, Internet's first supermodel? That doesn't even pass the giggle-test. Cindy Margolis has a MUCH stronger claim to that title.) -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Article deserves a chance --Katie Sweetmore (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet[reply]

A chance of what?--Scott Mac 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If striking isn't allowed, I should point out that the above SPA has been blocked as a CU confirmed sockpuppet – the above account (and !vote) is just one out of dozens of others by the same person. Hey Mid (contribs) 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking of sockpuppets is fine. Striking of other SPAs are not. -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to paraphrase a great man, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:48, 21 January 2011 (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.