Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Vasinova (3rd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2023 August 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. While the !vote count is close, there hasn't been a serious rebuttal to the delete !voters' arguments criticizing the quality of the cited sources. The consensus for salting is less clear, and in my personal discretion as an administrator I don't see enough repeated recreation of the article to warrant it at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Vasinova[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Renominating the article. Not meeting ACTOR or really GNG. I've reviewed the sources used, not much in RS, nor does this individual have anything beyond one-offs or bit parts. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the newest article I could find and it's very PROMO [1] and almost a year old at this point. No new sources turned up since our last time at AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 new sources found and added to the article. Check my comments below. Naomijeans (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Connecticut. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this article has a long, complicated history, but it seems like the subject now also has a long history of bit parts and is not really notable by ACTOR guidelines. The Courant source is OK, though, like many of the other references is promo'ish. 128.252.154.9 (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP Editor with no prior edits until today: what does it mean that the article had "Complicated history??" Do not make things up just to fill up space. The deletion history shows the subject once deleted in 2008, presumably when she didn't have as much credits or citations. Then it was nominated a few months ago but withdrawn, because the article was not yet completed. In what way is this a "long complicated history??" I also wonder if you have enough expertise to be voting here. Naomijeans (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I am the anon IP you're addressing.) I've been editing WP since its early days and, by the looks of your homepage, since you were 4 or 5 years old. I retired from account-based editing because of the growing problems of bullying, accusations of bad faith, ad hominems, etc...of the kind somewhat similar to the way you just addressed me. Now, I just stop-by from time-to-time to weigh-in here and there. In older, more decorous days, this is the point where you would tender an apology for your grossly off-base assumption, especially since you yourself seem only to have been here at WP for a few months. Now, as to your concern: the article's history is ipso facto complicated because of its 3 AfDs and the fact that there still aren't enough acceptable sources that are not promotional, web cruft, etc., as well as the fact that she very obviously does not pass in the primary notability space of ACTOR. I don't know how this AfD will end, but I would urge you in the future to dial-down the snark and try to avoid making assumptions. Best. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The person who replied to you is the creator and primary maintainer of the article, if that's any hint as to where the snark is coming from. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 03:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP Editor: The fact that you are doing this without an account is very suspicious, although you are probably not breaking any policy, I suspect you are a paid editor by profession and just voting delete on notable people so then you can contact these people and offer them your service. Back to the argument of notability, your reasoning again does not make any sense. it is besides the point if the page was nominated for AFD before, because the first was in 2008 when the person did not have much news and the 2nd was when I was not yet done with the page content completely and this same nominator nominated it for deletion, so I asked him to cancel so I could improve the page. It does not count as a real AFD. So that there is no complicated history and you are just making up nonsense words and reasons for deleting this page. The person is notable based on being a notable MODEL, not actor, but her acting ads to her notability. She has been on cover of at least 3-4 magazines, which makes her a notable model and meet WP:NMODEL. Naomijeans (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- (I am the anon IP you're addressing.) Congratulations. You've now graduated from making ill-advised assumptions to accusing me of bad faith. FWIW, I am a professor at a major private research university who has started numerous important WP articles in scientific areas and science bios and has made thousands of other edits before I semi-retired to anon editing, partially because of smug, newbie eds such as yourself making WP an increasingly unwelcome place to work. Good job. 128.252.154.8 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject meets WP:GNG. In addition to the existing citations, a search shows that TMZ[2] and People[3] cover the subject. desmay (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TMZ isn't a reliable source, People is about the Shark Tank guy suing her as his girlfriend, not really about her either. Oaktree b (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To the nominator: Firstly, it not accurate that there are no new news sources since a year ago, and that is not a valid reason for deletion. There is no such policy. Here are 2 recent articles I was able to find and she was also on cover of both these magazines: Grazia and DMH Magazine. She was also on the cover of Glamour, so based on WP:NMODEL she would qualify. These articles here will also mean she meets WP:BASIC: MAXIM, OK Magazine, Flaunt, Hardford Courant, Variaties.Naomijeans (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She hasn't make any significant contribution to a field of entertainment, being on the cover of a magazine is what models get paid to do. Oaktree b (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grazia is an interview and DHM is a bunch of photos with captions; first is a primary source, second isn't extensive coverage. Rest are about the same level of minimal coverage. Hartford Courant is also an interview, Variety is just her photo with a paragraph. She doesn't have a long article about her; she gives interviews and poses for photos, that's what models do. Oaktree b (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were no substantial sources at the last AfD, if some have been created since then, they would help her notability. No new substantial articles have been published since the last AfD, most of the ones you've listed existed as of the last AfD and didn't help notability there. She didn't meet it then with the existing sources (including these ones), nothing has changed since then that would change her notability is what I'm saying. Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being on a cover of a magazine, whether paid or not, would not make a difference. In fact, if paid that is even better, that means they are a popular model to get paid for it. In this case however, all the 3-4 magazines that have her on the cover did an editorial on her, so that would mean she was not paid. Here is another Magazine she was on the cover of L'Officiel.Naomijeans (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we could use a few more editors to review sourcing which the nominator argues are totally inadequate for a Wikipedia article. I should note that I closed the last AFD with a decision to Draftify this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has enough coverage.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted in the article and verified by referenced sources, the subject has appeared on the covers of at least three major magazines in the past year alone. I concur with the comment made by another editor regarding her work as actor contributing to her notability. CaseArmitage (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more discussion on the sources that have been added that the nominator is disputing as inadequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The majority of the references are gossip sites and non-mainstream entertainment publications. This is a resume of the person. Not an article of any real encyclopedic information. The only major result that comes in is the lawsuit and allegations against her ex-boyfriend Robert Herjavec who is far more notable than her. And his article actually covers this and it is not even mentioned on this one. But on the other hand, none of the keep votes actually say why this meets the notability requirements other than saying they found some articles or make a blanket statement about coverage without explaining why the current information helps with notability. She was never on the cover of any "major magazines." Being on the cover doesn't mean anything. Her acting credits are just bare at best in terms of actually knowing who she is. I refer back to the first AFD in 2008 which had the same issues. We should consider preventing another creation of this same subject to avoid another AFD which will have the same concerns about notability merits. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt interviews and gossipy churnalistic sources are not what we should be basing a BLP on. Once we start discussing such with any degree of seriousness, then it's a good indication that the necessary sourcing is absent. There has been some disgraceful badgering and ad Homs at the IP. I'm telling the offenders now that this isn't acceptable and I don't want to see it again from them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too much Promo type content and gossip coverage here, with not enough to support GNG. I also think a salt is in order here as well. User:Let'srun 03:55, 26 July 2023 (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.