Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demi Rose

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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Rose[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)

Demi Rose's appearances in eye-popping red lingerie apart, there's nothing here to get us over WP:GNG - certainly no independent, in-depth coverage or any role other than as a model that would possibly confer notability. As a model, there's no coverage beyond images, a couple of interviews and incidental mentions in coverage about others. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty lady in photographs, nothing else for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the articles are about how she looks in a bikini or something similar, no stories about her life in reliable sources. The BBC article as down below is one step towards wiki notability, I'd suggest we could revisit this later when she has more quality "hits" in media we can use for sourcing. Either delete or draftify, she's not quite at the notability bar yet. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deep coverage on BBC[1]. As a side note, she has 20M followers on Instagram. It's impossible to have such a huge fan base and not be notable for a Wikipedia article at the same time. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her follower count could very well be boosted by bots and clickbait farms, it's the number of active users that tells the story. It's about the same as spotify stream numbers. There are videos and stories of stream farms, where it's literally a wall of ipods on rack shelving, all streaming the same song at the same time. People pay others to boost their numbers for them, it's not terribly honest. But it is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Although BBC coverage is reasonable as 4nnl12 notes, that article seems to be quite the outlier. Nothing in WaPo, NYT, Slate, Variety, etc.—simply not commensurate with her popularity measured in followers. If more sources crop up discussing her in a nontrivial manner—actual consequence on, say, the modeling industry, on fans, on other notable celebrities—then yeah. Ovinus (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Keep per source found below; my research was apparently inadequate. Ovinus (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are more reliable sources. I can put more time into finding them, but this one from news.com.au, an award-winning online newspaper in Australia, should be enough, I think. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article, though? Its title ("Demi Rose shocks in racy Dolls Kills green bikini") is representative of its contents: meaningless commentary on some photos. Award-winning indeed.... Ovinus (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I understand that you folks on enwiki don't like "racy" articles on British tabloids.

I found some content on Metro (British newspaper) and People (magazine) which do not have "racy" things in their titles. But please note that she is not a rocket scientist either, so it's not logical to expect these article revolve around deep issues:
Death of her parents [2][3]

Appearing in a music video by Tom Zanetti [4]

Dating Tyga, ex-boyfriend of Kylie Jenner [5][6][7]

Catwalk incident[8][9][10]

Are these acceptable on your part? If yes, then maybe I can find more. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Metro.UK is not reliable per WP:METRO. Dating a celebrity does not confer notability. So no, these sources don't contribute to notability. And with regards to "expect these article revolve around deep issues": Of course, we're not expecting that. It just needs to be significant coverage, and it's easy to cover a celebrity beyond Instagram photos. For example, any decent interview would likely discuss a celebrity's life, intentions, interests, opinions on the industry... something we can actually use. Ovinus (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most people (including the nominator) are getting misled by the spicy titles of the sources, but the cited sources do significantly cover different aspects of her life and career. For example the following sources (along with many others) talk about her life in a nontrivial manner:

Instagram model Demi Rose on why she joined OnlyFans
Distraught Birmingham model Demi Rose Mawby loses both parents in space of a year
Here's How Demi Rose Mawby Is Making Her Mark On The Modeling World

Also note that "hot images" are essential part of her work as a social media model, just like "songs" are part of a singer's career or "books" of an author's. Insight 3 (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She's almost at the notability bar. I had to wait to create the Shannon Singh article until we had decent enough sources to use; this lady is about the same idea as Singh. She's almost notable for our sources. One more interview like the BBC one and she'd be good enough for an article here in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Oaktree b; once she receives another good interview, there's an article to be written. I"m not being misled by the sources' titles; I'm being led by the sources' content! The BBC source is good and ought to be used. The Things and Birmingham Mail look questionable in terms of quality, but what do they say, anyway? The second one is a fawning article over her difficult backstory and (perhaps the only part deserving mention here) that she got a lot of followers without contracts. The first one is broken for me, unfortunately, but the usage of the word "Distraught" in the title is a bit worrying. It's about reliability, not me/others being puritanical. Ovinus (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then both of you should change your votes because here is that interview you requested :) 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good find; thanks! Ovinus (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even then your article Shannon Singh is tagged for notability issues! Insight 3 (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She was interviewed in Glamour UK, in the BBC and the Guardian used her story as an example of women of colour not getting enough airtime. I figured it had enough good sources; problem is articles get chopped up once I publish them, so they don't always retain their quality. It's not been brought to AfD yet, so that's good. Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have added new references as per search of 4nn1l2. Everyone voting for "Delete" should revisit the article. Insight 3 (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and appreciate your efforts, but she still doesn't get past WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has 20 million followers and is covered nearly daily in British tabloids. Coverage extends beyond tabloids, for example BBC, AP, news.com.au, and yahoo.com. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AP is probably the best after the BBC one. The news.com.au is simply about her in a bikini and yahoo.com is of the same quality. I'd count it as 1 good source and one ok source, not sure it's good enough for notability yet. Oaktree b (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the bikini images, the news.com.au also mentions some info about her age, native city, number of Instagram followers, being a former DJ, etc. Also she is in the People Magazine and the OK! Magazine. Insight 3 (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:SIGCOV is "significant coverage in reliable sources", I think we need to recognize the sheer amount of coverage of Rose in non-reliable tabloids where it is daily almost. It is actually difficult to find reliable sources due to the sheer amount of tabloid coverage, I found reliable source coverage by searching specific sources and trying to filter out some of the tabloids. All this tabloid coverage is not usable, particularly not for BLP, but it is an indicator of significance and interest. Pikavoom ^Talk 08:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget about Fox News and New York Daily News, both of which are reliable according to WP:RSP. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider new sources found since the AFD was opened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With significant media coverage in multiple reliable sources, the subject passes WP:BASIC. Insight 3 (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage. Artw (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2022 (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.