Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Sieber

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. Subjects do not need to be notable for any personal achievements, provided there are independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage for whatever reasons. The consensus in this case is that there is such coverage. RL0919 (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Sieber[edit]

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

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

Not Notable - Should be deleted EliotWL (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EliotWL (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. EliotWL (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. EliotWL (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 05:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A brief (but by no means comprehensive) search of Google News and Google Books indicates that this subject is reasonably well-covered in reliable sources. There is definitely room for expansion, and the sources currently in the article are sufficient that it does not need to be moved to draft pending such improvement. BD2412 T 05:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Brand ambassadors", "social influencers" and suchlike are not my cup of tea, but if there is enough in-depth coverage of them in reliable sources - and there is in this case - then they merit an article. Edwardx (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources show notability, as a fashion influencer etc. PamD 11:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough reliable sources (Telegraph, Vogue, per WP:RSP) with enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Achaea (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is a big no for me. There is no notability in being a socialite without achievements. And there is absolutely none of that going on here. You have given a woman an article for... buying couture? And getting married? Is this where we really are?! Being a Chanel brand ambassador does zilch. I have borne witness right there on almighty "social media" to Chanel giving brand ambassador status for the Cannes Film Festival to Swedish twins who are literally only famous for being best friends with Drake! Trillfendi (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem we come to with that is that mainstream media chooses to give such people coverage, such that they meet the criteria for being covered by reliable sources. In a sense, we reflect the subjects that society outside Wikipedia has chosen to give its attention, even if we find the accomplishments of those subjects trivial. BD2412 T 23:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at all those sources. Daily Mail.... good God, that one goes without saying. Vogue: woman has nice house. They do it every issue. Only thing worthy of note is a sentence of working with Emma Watson as her stylist. But even that isn’t special enough to save this article. Next it’s woman models purse, in photos it appears she had had taken of herself as all the so-called influencers do these days. No official campaign to speak of, and again, even that isn’t enough. Then it’s the ghastly "woman buys couture". Ok what is next? Woman buys Mercedes? Then we have woman gets married. Millions of others do the same every year. It’s a right of passage but not particularly a notable case unless you’re the likes of Meghan Markle or Isha Ambani. The rest are simply about appearances. What’s so great about it that thousands of others in her rank haven’t also done? None of it warrants a Wikipedia article. This is a glorified Daily Mail piece in itself. Trillfendi (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have seen at least three reliable sources discussing subject of our discussion. I see no real red flags here. Was a WP:BEFORE conducted? Oh and besides what sort of rationale is “not notable should be deleted” Celestina007 (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dramatic irony. Trillfendi (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like Kardashian fame but that is essentially what this is. She is notable because of significant coverage in reliable sources. Many people get married, but not many are featured in Vogue. What was strange to me is this article was deleted right after I cleaned it up. This is the link to what it looked like before. I would not have spent the time to do so if I didn't think she was notable. --Titanchowder (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difference with the Kardashians is that they have reliable sources, and now documentaries, dissecting their fame (regrettably even from The Guardian now) despite utter lack of talents, to the T. How they got to this point in society. By itself their tv show is notable for being the highest rated in its category. It isn’t just “these are pretty girls with nice clothes, nice houses, nice cars, rich boyfriends, publicity stunt marriages” because that would just be in the realm of gossip, not notability. I find it odd that on other occasions where it’s actually valid Vogue “isn’t enough”, but when it’s people of questionable-to-nil notability it’s “but Vogue!” It’s a feature of every issue but is it really notable enough for a Wikipedia article where no notability is actually expressed? Trillfendi (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been said that Vogue "isn't enough"? It is a consensus green-light source for reliability. BD2412 T 14:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any discussions where Vogue was discussed as being either or. I am only speaking about these times. Although, I would say it is a reliable source. What I would suggest is that we use it carefully though. Someone mentioned once in Vogue may not demonstrate notability, but several times likely would. I would agree that Kardashians have notability now. I would have to look at the history but I believe they had articles prior to having documentaries, clothing lines, cosmetic companies, etc. --Titanchowder (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She seems clearly notable. Article is well-sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CmdrGibbons (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock blocked Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:23, 28 December 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.