Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nous Model Management (2nd nomination)

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 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nous Model Management

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

Non notable agency that can not inherit any notability from its list of clients. It must be notable in its own right. Minor notability is asserted in the article with the involvement with a TV show, but providing prizes is, of itself, a PR gesture, not anything that genuinely garners notability. The referencing fails to pass our criteria for independence, significant coverage and WP:RS all three applied simultaneously Fiddle Faddle 10:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage that I can find. "Prizes provided by ...," if that was the extent of their involvement in the show, is PR bought and paid for, it doesn't confer notability. In my opinion the "no consensus" conclusion to the previous deletion discussion was erroneous because there were two clearly well grounded Delete entries, and WP:NOTINHERITED renders null the only arguments given under the two Keep entries ("Having notable clients indicates that the management company is notable - in the same way as a record label who has notable bands indicates notability for the label"). —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No authoritative sources or indication that WP:ORG criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A News search found several links but nothing solid and significant while Books also found a few links but nothing significant. Overall, there's not much to add notability or improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The agency was notable enough to be on Tyra Banks Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuiQbYMCxO8 I know just a YouTube link is not notable in itself, but this was a majour television show and it's an additional indicator that it is an important agency. werldwayd (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2015 (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.