Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Ahrens

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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Ahrens[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)

WP:NMODEL At this time, model lacks notability and a sufficient number of reliable sources. Article doesn’t even name what brands she has modeled for. Trillfendi (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improved. AVS (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still not enough.Trillfendi (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as the articles added, I also found two in the New York Times, one in Vogue UK, one in a Swiss magazine - there is plenty to meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article as it is, is a mess. No offense to who created it but they probably aren’t a native English speaker; it looks like it went to Google Translate first. I’ve written more than enough fashion model articles to know how it goes. Reliable sources must be independent of the subject and significant coverage. Two “model wall”-style interviews where they ask 10 short random questions really don’t cut it, and I know that from experience. If it was a long form interview or the model is actually in a magazine being interviewed that’s a different (notable) story. Mentions are not notability.Trillfendi (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comparing Amanda Murphy, Nadja Bender, Frederikke Sofie, Slick Woods, Ebonee Davis same quality level. @Trillfendi: Your experiance in poor skils of GOOGLE translate (see: fr:Anok Ya) shold not influence this discussion on deletion. AVS (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote Amanda Murphy, Nadja Bender, Frederikke Sofie, Slick Woods, Ebonee Davis, and Anok Yai’s English version manually in my native English and there have been absolutely no grammar complaints in the entire year(s) that I wrote them—until you came here out of spite. 🤔They’re written in Simple English. Anok Yai’s French version was simply created with Wikipedia’s Translation Service through Articles of Creation which I assume relies on Google Translate, the world’s worst translation service. All one has to do is press the box and it translates automatically and I assumed someone else would clean up the mess. But I did go back to manually correct such glaring errors. When I spoke of my experience in creating model articles I clearly meant I know what sources don’t pass notability. The clause was obviously depenedent on the next sentence not the previous sentence. It has nothing to do with ±the article’s grammatical quality which one could easily fix. This article doesn’t even mention her biggest jobs with sources. Before I proposed deletion it mentioned none of her work at all. Adwoa Aboah is now one of the biggest models in the world and before I recreated her article someone else had deleted it years ago. Probably because they didn’t. show. her. notability. It’s not my fault someone else went in and removed all her jobs.Trillfendi (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Avernarius, I went and fixed all the errors YOU MADE in this article, including not even spelling her name right. Check yourself before you check me.Trillfendi (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool down please. The discussion here is on contents (which I compared), not on grammar. The allegation of use of GOOGlE translate came from You. Besides: I did not create the article. AVS (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t say you actually used Google Translate, I said that’s how the wording came across. I pointed out that the Sophia Ahrens article appeared to be written illegibly based on your edits according to the page history. It’s not personal, it’s an observation. The person who created the article wrote it fine until intermediate edits messed up the article to this point.Trillfendi (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2018 (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.