Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Ren

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. SpinningSpark 12:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Ren[edit]

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

Alleged to be a CSD A7 eligible article, but the editor disagrees. I'm listing here for community input on whether the article should be deleted or not. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm not seeing a lot of definitely-usable sites when searching, but there does seem to be a fair amount of coverage. Needs a huge rewrite if kept.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Will clean all unsourced information since a girl which know her good add a lot information about her, but there is no reliable source. Will try to find more information to cover it. Still, i think its fair to keep the article. Its have all the needed sources and watching to add new information every time i got sourced information. I do believe its not fair to delete it, since there is a lot more unreliable articles which have no reason to be here, but they are. Worked on this article, Ren is happy that she got wiki page, so lets keep it - K.belev (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly tell "Ren" to wait until she is notable and someone with no COI will write about her here. Wikicology (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per WP:CSD#A7. She could have that biography published elsewhere but certainly not here. Wikicology (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she fails on WP:CSD#A7. She is a model with manager, having a half milions followers/fans. Already worked for big names like Calvin Klein. How is she not important. - K.belev (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start with the fact that every model are often managed by a manager, and that does not have any effect on notability. Let me continue with the fact that Having half a million followers on facebook/twitter does not make her an encyclopedic subject. Wikipedia is not facebook or social network of any form, it is an encyclopedia. Let me conclude with the fact that Notability is not Inherited. Having worked with Calvin Klein does not make her notable.. Wikicology (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article have enouth references, its about real person and will be fair to be kept here. I fell that she has done a lot which making her a notable. If the article is deleted, sooner or later will be made new for her. - K.belev (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read WP:RS. Wikicology (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick Google indicates she's been a cover girl for Brejk. Is that not the sort of thing that counts towards "notability" in this field? English coverage seems to be limited to "JoBlo.com" and "TheImproper.com" – not even sure what those are. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly intended to promote this person's career, rather than to document a person whose career is noteworthy. If one's job is modeling, then having evidence that you have modeled is merely evidence that you have done your job. It will take much more to achieve notability at a WP level. LaMona (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it would further her career. Do people come to Wikipedia to book models? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Μυρτώ Τζώρτζου (2014-09-20). "Alexis Ren: Συγκρατήστε το... όνομά της". Proto Thema (in Greek). Archived from the original on 2014-12-21. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
2. Μυρτώ Τζώρτζου (2014-05-28). "Alexis Ren: Συγκρατήστε το... όνομά της". Proto Thema (in Greek). Archived from the original on 2014-12-21. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
3. Šimák, Milan (2014). "Zmyselná baletka Alexis Ren vás odzbrojí nielen anjelskym úsmevom". Pluska.sk (in Slovak). Archived from the original on 2014-12-21. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
4. 胡芸芳 (2014-12-17). "美国96年女星拍性感写真 "真空"抢镜(图)" (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2014-12-21. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alexis Ren to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ran all of these through translate, and they all have the same 3 sentences about her, and nothing else. "The Ren was born on November 23, 1996 in Los Angeles, California to parents originally from Russia and Germany and upcoming model. From small and for 10 years worked with ballet but what he wanted to do was photographed as a model something turns. The Ren loves gymnastics and visits daily the gym for yoga, pilates, aerobics and weights. During the summer months, as a true child of California and Los Angeles, indulging in various water sports." I wouldn't say that this is "sufficient" in terms of content. Especially since they seem to copy the same text. LaMona (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The different language sources (Greek, Slovakian, and Chinese) might be reporting the same basic facts about her, but I think there is just enough (though barely) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletearticle lacks the type of sources to establish the subject is a notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: soft-core porn sources don't get her past the reliable sources criteria of GNG. Vrac (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only trivial and routine coverage, nothing that would make me feel this person meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I still find it fair to keep it, until more reliable sources come. Is it possible to redirect the article to Nous Model Management until that time? See no point to delete it and after some months to create it again. K.belev (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My second preference (after "keep") is to redirect to Nous Model Management (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect would be better than a red link because this is a plausible search term. Preserving the history under the redirect would be better than deleting the history. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:
The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.
A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.
Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.
In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.
Cunard (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR in multiple countries is still just PR. I would very strongly oppose redirecting borderline notable models to their management--that amounts to WP directory. If future sources show notability, an article can be written based on them. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects says:
Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)
Alexis Ren is a subtopic of Nous Model Management, and she is listed in that article. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Cunard (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep but erase sources like tumblr and promotion (not relevant and neutral at all). It might be rewrite to be more accurate. Torukmato (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even with unreliable sources removed, should have been A7. Becky Sayles (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2014 (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.