Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Steinberg (2nd nomination)

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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Steinberg[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)

Was trying to fix an orphan article, but I came to the conclusion that she just doesn't pass our criteria for notability. There are some sources, including Brightside.com (fails WP:RS) and The Fashion Model Directory (user input, like IMDB, so fails WP:RS for V/N) and she won an award from Models.com (not notable company, not notable award, was "people's choice", a popularity vote, not a vote of industry people). Looked around the web and I see lots of social media. Even in the unreliable sources, she barely gets a mention, and utterly no significant coverage. Yes, she is a model, yes, she has had some good gigs (but can't verify them) but no independent or reliable sig/cov at all. At the end of the day, she fails to clear the low bar of WP:GNG, the gold standard for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Israel, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last AfD covered this and was just a month ago? Right? FortunateSons (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that until after I created this AFD, and I spot checked a couple of the sources only that were given, and unimpressed by the sig/cov and WP:RS, so I decided to let it play out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Did you check the Russian articles as well? FortunateSons (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Has just been kept after a comprehensive debate. If we would delete it now, this would be a classroom example of FORUMSHOPPING. gidonb (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. I can't find anything more than database like IMDb, Getty images, Shutterstock photos, Famous Birthday, and more. Problem of context ad SIGCOV. Looking the the article again, there may be chance of being notable in the future but in the status quo, No!!!. Trying WP:THREE, I can't find any too! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To mitigate my forumshop concern, I'm inviting EVERYONE to this debate who has expressed an opinion in the previous AfD that was just closed as keep. Please, all, express your opinion once more! Ping: CurryTime7-24, Oaktree b, Tehonk, Ostalgia, FortunateSons, Marokwitz, Jeraxmoira, I'm tla. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a delete, I didn't see coverage a month ago, nothing's changed. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I voted delete in first nom, still think the same, the sources do not really satisfy SIGCOV. Tehonk (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: Per WP:6MONTHS. Personally, I am leaning towards delete unless someone does a source analysis of the articles mentioned in the previous AfD to show WP:THREE or other relevant SNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my procedural keep vote. Though other editors may not feel the same and there should never be an excuse because we have the WP:6MONTHS rule for a reason, I believe this nom was done in good faith without the knowledge of the previous AfD, so my vote should be taken as Draftify until a clear source analysis is presented. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really did miss the fact that an AFD had just taken place, so it wasn't trying to pound the article, but once it was done, I felt I should let it snow, or let more people look at it. Really, I just don't see how this passes GNG with anything remotely related to significant coverage. Maybe it is too soon, maybe it will get there eventually, but it isn't there now and there is no reason to think there is enough sigcov out there. Plenty of mentions? Sure, but that isn't the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there any more support for Draftifying? It just seems odd to close the 1st AFD as Keep one month and then Delete in the 2nd AFD one more later after editors found new sourcing during the last AFD that might not have been added to the article yet. But this AFD can be closed if another closer sees a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a draft, if others find sources that I didn't consider or see them differently than I do, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: My first deletion vote attributed that the subject may be notable in the future. After much thought and the relist comment by Liz, I thought of giving a chance too. Dratification should work well here.
Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT; sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2024 (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.