Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmie Kersmo

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie Kersmo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO nothing of interest found in a WP:BEFORE search. None of the sources are in-depth coverage in a WP:RS Domdeparis (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden -related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion -related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find passing mentions, no significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -there are mentions of him and his career. The minimum amount has been reached. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind explaining which sources are in-depth secondary coverage as per WP:GNG? Domdeparis (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are peeved after the Demitz debacle but if you are going to !vote keep on all the associated articles that I nominate for deletion you really need to give valid arguments. Simple mentions are not sufficient to meet GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I looked at the sources and I could not find the coverage necessary but I may have missed something so please don't hesitate to cite the sources you feel are enough that will help the others who !vote and I will happily withdraw the nomination if I feel it is enough. Domdeparis (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get out if here... You lost it at Demitz. Log out of Wikipedia for an hour. Good luck.BabbaQ (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis got a point here. In the last article I voted as you because there were sources. Could you please give us the sources here on this page that makes you vote keep? Adville (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived several dead links that I read elsewhere. And added a few new sources and information to the article.BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better especially the Cosmo bit but for me it doesn't cut it as meeting GNG. But I'll let others decide. Domdeparis (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not close to meeting GNG. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL would seem to apply here - a model will of course have his face displayed, it's part and parcel of the job, and the so-called "famous" adverts don't seem to have been notable per WP's definition. Or if the ads were written about, which I don't know, Kersmo's name was not mentioned in any case. I have looked for sources in English and Swedish, but again it's either trivial mentions or non-RS sources like blogs. --bonadea contributions talk 06:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Harem just a side role. Foto modeling, but not so visible for that on externa places (googled) dressman is huge, but not notorius. The vodka, ok but its just a taste and the source a vine blogg. Too weak sources. I really tried to find better sources. Adville (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medium rare KEEP refer to BabbaQ Boeing720 (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kersmo was one of the most high profile people ever seen on all the major commercial channels of Swedish television, featured for several years centrally or solo, both dressed and undressed, in very frequent ads by a major Nordic clothier. Anyone who watched television in Sweden in those years would immediately know his face. If that had not been the case, this article would probably have never been created.

If this were really the case where are the sources? Domdeparis (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the same reason as given by the anonymous poster above. The Dressman ads are very visible and well known in Sweden. /FredrikT (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about the ads but the person. Notability is not inherited. Add sources that mention him and this will help prove his notability. Domdeparis (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appearing in ads or photo shoots if you're a model adds absolutely nothing to notability per the notability guideline. They are at best primary sources that are not independent of the subject, and as such don't cut it. The only thing the ads show is that Kersmo showed up for work and did what models do at work.

There are just too few WP:RS to establish notability, but the article is padded with non-RS to make it look supported. Model Mayhem and Promod appear to be model agencies, which means they aren't independent and questionable as RS. I don't really know what the Fashonisto is, but it doesn't look major. He's mentioned among others as one of the Harem participants. The Cosmopolitan article is the best argument for notability, but the scarcity of other significant mentions in WP:RS means that I must not-vote for delete. Sjö (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources are sufficient to show notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable media to establish notability.–Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No source is in-depth. Small appearances and mentions does not prove notability. /Elzo 90 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2017 (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.