Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serafima Vakulenko

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serafima Vakulenko[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)

Sadly one of the countless articles that rely on a defunct directory. No Google results show up. And no, forums are inapplicable. Trillfendi (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The actual New York magazine covered her in their 2008 Spring Supplement on fashion. That source verifies that she "walked her first runway at Giorgio Armani's spring 2007 Privé", that she was "exclusive for Prada in Milan for fall 2007", and that she walked in spring 2008 shows for "Marc Jacobs, Yigal Azrouël, Thakoon, Yves Saint Laurent, Jil Sander (above), and the season's biggest, Lanvin". Of course, one might disagree that those productions meet the standard of WP:ENT, but that should be an explicit argument, which I don't see here. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of articles New York Magazine mentioned her in were explicitly about her so it just wasn’t worth mentioning as they don’t give any substantial contribution to notability. Including this one. One sentence amongst a group of 9 other models. Or this one which just list her. Trillfendi (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. For better or worse, WP:ENT doesn't require significant coverage. It requires verifiable accomplishment of one of the items in the SNG. For this person, it looks like that would be "significant roles" in "multiple notable...other productions" (as film, tv, etc don't apply). Walking in these fashion shows is verifiable in RS. So, to rule out WP:ENT, do you think 1) That walking in a show is a "significant role"? 2) That these fashion shows are "notable...other productions"? Bakazaka (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't (personally) file models under entertainers as with musicians or actors. Just verifying a job only makes it a resume. Walking a show can be significant if they opened it or were an exclusive in it, or if they were noticed for walking in a particularly high number of shows, but other than that it doesn't stand out among the 30 or 40 other girls who did the same thing, walk down a runway. Some fashion brands carry much more of a level of prestige than others. Trillfendi (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an ontological distinction, just a matter of which guidelines might apply. So, if walking a show can be significant, is this subject's activity significant? For example, her verifiable Prada exclusive? Bakazaka (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a Prada exclusive is seen in the industry as the holy grail because of their track record of long term successful career endorsement (look at Gemma Ward, Daria Werbowy, Sasha Pivovarova, Julia Nobis; more recently Anok Yai comes to mind but she’s still a newbie) but of course that doesn’t always happen. I think of Willy Wonka, 5 got golden tickets but you see how that turned out, right? From what I see in the article, I don’t see much of anything. Judging by this article she only worked for two seasons and only maybe 2 or 3 brands stick out among others to be on par with a brand like Prada. (Regrettably, Christian Lacroix went bankrupt years ago). Trillfendi (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So her Prada exclusive is one "significant role" in a notable "other production". WP:ENT requires "multiple" significant roles. Does walking in the fall 2008 Lanvin show, which the New York 2008 source seems to think is pretty significant, count as a "significant role" in a notable "other production"? Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to use the word mediocre but that’s a “it’s not much... but it’s something” scenario. It’s neither here nor there. In my opinion it’s not enough though. Either she retired early or the industry’s notorious turnover rate got to her first. Trillfendi (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG (at least in my searches), and Trillfendi has convinced me that the subject's verifiable accomplishments do not rise to the level required to pass WP:ENT. Many thanks to Trillfendi for taking the time to explain the reasoning there. Open to reconsideration if significant coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails [[WP:NMODEL]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having a job is not a basis for notability - does not meet WP:GNG ("received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - modeling photos in magazines does not count as "significant coverage") - does not meet WP:NMODEL ("Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions") - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:52, 12 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.