Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicja Tubilewicz


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Alicja Tubilewicz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable model, sourced to photos with no actual coverage (aside from the normal black hat SEO fake news sites) Praxidicae (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as she is an international model (Being in shows internationally). The article needs serious work, but she is notable enough for a wikipedia article.  Elijahandskip (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Google search her name and you see multiple search results. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely why I've AFD'd it. The results are almost entirely black hat SEO spam that her PR team paid for without a single independent source that has in depth coverage. Being "an international model" is a job title, it isn't an indicator of notability, the same as being "an international traveler" Praxidicae (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if you do have evidence that the results are "black hat SEO spam" that the PR team paid for. (I don't doubt it, but that statement you said above alludes that you have evidence of that and it should be stated for the AFD process.) Elijahandskip (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes and I've explained it in multiple places. They are operated by several different firms and looking at their "about us" page will indicate why. I'm not going to delve repeatedly into every single source. The reason why those source aren't in the article is because they are blacklisted from the several arguments I've already made. Praxidicae (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete — Per ’s conversation with above. An article spammed with PR sponsored posts is very much indicative of the non notability of article’s subject. A massive GNG fail seeing as a great majority of sources used aren’t independent of the subject. Celestina007 19:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete being. an international model is not necessarily or even usualy notability -- and it any case it's essentialy an advertisement.  DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. Sources and BEFORE all look like promo pieces.
 * Weak delete Frankly (as someone all too familiar) I’m surprised she even has an article right now. While I do believe her work is notable as a model, unfortunately there are just not enough reliable sources to establish general notability. We’ve got to be able to verify these things. Trillfendi (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Coverage is both very niche (best is ?) and reads like re-written press releases, mostly not about her about about the collections she is wearing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG - locally known, not outside of her market. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.