Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faretta

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. Sandstein 07:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faretta[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)

The content here is name-dropping, not encyclopedic content. The coverage is PR,and the placement on a list is not a notable award. Or is it serious being contended that one of the “Top 50” models by models.com[" is equivalent to encyclopedic notability? I notice we have no article on it, so I don't see how we could say its even notable,much the less authoritative. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I rod the article and I think the article subject which belong to a person is notable, but I also think the subject can merge with a comprehensive article, such as the mentioned article on career section.Forest90 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article’s creator I obviously have no reason to vote. But I won’t go back and forth with people who don’t know jack shit about modeling. Sadly, it’s that demographic of editors who always seem to have the most opinions on the subject. A group who couldn’t even name a new model (from any recent season no less) if held at gun-point but think they know what quantifies their notability. Manifestly, not. The point of saying which shows a model does IS THAT IT’S WHAT AMERICAN VOGUE PROFILED. Duh! It’s what VOGUE spotlighted as notability. Spring 2017 was Faretta’s first full ready-to-wear season, and she came on like gangbusters, opening three shows (Victoria Beckham, Roberto Cavalli, and Mugler) and closing one (Chloé). She wore key looks like Saint Laurent’s bustier top and Céline’s Yves Klein–inspired dress. What made Faretta right for each of the distinct brands that cast her? There’s nothing saccharine about her; rather, she communicates an innate strength combined with an air of fresh-scrubbed healthiness. It’s a winning combo. If they take notice the model is doing something right. The cover of British Vogue under the latent editorialship of Edward Enninful? My God, do your research. But since you don’t know fashion I wouldn’t expect you to understand. And then yet another Vogue? The point of all these sources is that people who want to read more about the model can go there to do so. If you don’t like the coverage: WP:NNC. If you don’t like the way the article is written then re-write it. It’s that simple. If I was writing this article for so-called PR then I’d include the mindless minutiae of Victoria Beckham’s Instagram photo. Questioning the legitimacy of models.com’s well-respected-for-20 years-and-regularly-updated "Top 50" list? Blithe ignorance. That’s that on that. Trillfendi (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from commenting on other editors when making your arguments.—Chowbok ☠ 04:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources--only one brief write-up in the New York Times and an article in Vogue. Seeing how we don't even have an article on models.com itself, much less its "Top 50" list, it's presumably not a reliable source. Her article can always be re-added if she gets more coverage.—Chowbok ☠ 04:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Notability isn't inherited from the designers/firms she does shows for. Much of the first few pages of google news results were for other people with a similar name. Majority of google results were model profile pages. The Vogue article spends more words profiling her clothing than it does her. I don't think the subject has general notability (however successful she may be within the confines of the modelling world), and that's whether you go by WP:NMODEL, WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG. ogenstein (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s no wonder NMODEL is being “re-litigated” on the WP:NPEOPLE talk page. Idiocy like this comment. Absolute lack of understanding of what notability is for a model. (however successful she may be within the confines of the modelling world) IS NOTABILITY FOR A MODEL. That’s all it has to be. Trillfendi (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that relitigation? Or moaning? The issue isn't what is notable 'for a model'. Models that stand above the crowd have pages (e.g. Klum, Bundchen and many more) as do the other elements of the fashion trade, such as the fashion houses, the magazines/editors, or the big shows, so notability can be achieved. I don't have a lack of understanding of your position, I just disagree with how it should be handled here. I think that there are many issues with what you're suggesting but even if there weren't, it is clear that this subject lacks notability. ogenstein (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of models’ articles on this website. Evidently you don’t know what actually makes a model notable, and it certainly doesn’t have be mainstream supermodels who retired in the last decade. Or in Klum’s case didn’t even have the body type to be a runway model therefore rarely set foot in the runway besides the VS Fashion Show.

If you learn how to read, you’ll see that weeks ago another editor on the NPEOPLE talk page brought up redefining the standards of notability for a model because of a previous AfD where people dug through the Internet’s garbage bins to find 20-year old, unavailable magazine covers (on Amazon.com for God’s sake), forums where people gossip about models, or any mere mention that ever happened whether or not the source was reliable, and tried to call that notability and significant coverage). Trillfendi (talk) 19:18, 23 May 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.