Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarah Mariano

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jarah Mariano[edit]

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

Non notable model. Some covers, some works, just that. Damiens.rf 17:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; I'm not sure how you can say non-notable when she so strongly passes the notability criteria. this source says that she's modelled for Abercrombie & Fitch, Armani, Old Navy and Victoria's Secret, also having been on the cover of Complex. Magazine covers, multiple modelling campaigns including a TV commercial. What more do you expect? Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I think of WP:N, I think of of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We have here a model who's image has appeared a number of times, but are these reliable sources that are independent of the subject? For an artist I would hope to see some reviews of her work. Edgepedia (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What Edgepedia said; what I expect is for the subject to meet WP:GNG. WP:N is routinely (and grotesquely) misinterpreted to mean "The subject is important." That is not what the guideline states. The GNG states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There are certainly fap-blogs with "OMG she'z HAWT" exclamations, but that doesn't constitute articles about her. Ravenswing 16:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the work is not sufficiently important: mostly minor appearances. I come to the same conclusion as Edgepedia and RG Traynor, but I disagree, almost word by word, with the reason. WP:N is routinely isinterpreted to mean "the subject has sources, of certain specific types". The true inclusion criterion is being important enough to be in an encyclopedia, in whatever way determined: sometimes from work produced, sometimes for athletic achievements, sometimes from awards, sometimes from formal positions--and sometimes, in case there is no actual direct criterion, the extremely indirect criterion of WP:GNG, which is therefore indeed the default. It's a very imprecise default, subject to many distortions: negative ones, in culture areas or subject fields for which such sources are hard for us to work with; positive ones, where the increasing omnipresence of the Googles makes in possible to find multiple sources that fit the criterion for almost everything of certain types, however unimportant. When we want to reject the article because of conceiving the subject unimportant, we reject the source; when we want to include it, we accept the source. The reason we can in practice reach agreed conclusions, is that the two approaches agree 90% of the time. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 15 November 2010 (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.