Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milana Keller (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. ✗plicit 23:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milana Keller

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Milana Keller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was deleted in 2019 after

WP:NMODEL. In the new version, only one source (the trivial profile on models.com) comes from after the AfD. Having done a search, I believe that her claim to notability has not changed since 2019. Hence, the article should be deleted again. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

An interesting question. I take it you are referring to Criterion No. 1
WP:NMODEL, where it says that subjects should have been part of 'notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production[s]'. The criterion doesn't make it clear whether fashion shows fall under this criterion. The question we should be asking, then, is whether fashion shows are equivalent to, say, a film or a TV show (since these are what the criterion looks to). I personally don't know enough about the industry to answer this question. My rationale for deleting comes from the following angle: all topics in Wikipedia should in the first place be measured against GNG. Most SNG are there to help us find topics that have garnered the kind of quality and depth of coverage that the GNG calls for. In Keller's case, (in additon to the SNG claim being doubtful) there is no significant high-quality coverage. Hence I believe we should delete the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's the quotation from
WP:N
about SNG and GNG that's in the background of my view: 'The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.'
That makes sense to me. I know in fields that there isn't likely to be significant coverage than the specific topic notability guidelines are important to consider, but I think for models coverage would be likely and therefore GNG should apply first like you say! Thank you for taking the time to explain to me as I am still learning. FiddleheadLady (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 8 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Milana_Keller_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1060507146"