Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Kulkov


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Kulkov

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable model lacking Ghtis and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. Article references do not meet criteria for secondary references. red dog six (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't agree with the demands you are implying: If you have found information of the model, then that makes him a recognizable personality in his field of work.


 * I think this article should be a part of Wikipedia because it depicts a notable public person that works as a male model in the fashion industry that has made his way through the industry with talent and skills acquired naturally. He may not be the most recognizable model but he has achieved many accolades in the industry like his American mens magazine covers which are rarely given to male models, holding a place in the Top 10 Money Guys List, continuously working for every market that exists in the business (Latin America, Australia, Europe, America, Asia, etc.), acquiring recognition as a chameleon for his editorial work and style as well as starting his acting career. He is a perfect example of what a modelling career can become because of talent, good graces and charisma in front of the camera while still be a grounded person, things you can't say of many models or people for that matter. I hope you understand my point and keep this article live.


 * All references are sustainable sources of information like Models.com, site dedicated to publishing work and updating profiles on models, Male Model Scene, website dedicated to upload any print or digital work a model achieves and other trusted sources form sites that inform about the modelling industry and links to his own modelling management agencies. (talk) 12:12, 18February 2013 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavoz (talk • contribs)


 * Comment - All articles are required to meet certain criteria in order to be included in Wikipedia. In this case notability needs to be established using  verifiable, independent, non-trivial references.  Non-trivial generally means articles about the individual (not just a paragraph), they can be newspaper or otherwise.  A mention in a listing or a group of pictures of the individual does not meet the criteria. Just being on the cover or in a magazine does not work.  I suggest you look for items about the individual that that meets the criteria.


 * Please note just being a "public person" does not entitle someone to be in Wikipedia. Inclusion is based on Wikipedia based notability, not "popularity", "talent", or "publicity." red dog six  (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: A prototypical article written by a fan forced to stretch dubious sources to assert notability. The only source that appears reliable (and that does more than simply verify that the subject is indeed a model) is the Chaos Magazine interview, but then again, Chaos is fashion industry-oriented so such an article arguably fails the routine coverage guideline.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 15:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article now has more reliable sources which include international newspapers articles and magazines and direct links to the person or people's work. No source is linked to a fansite. The links that are directed towards his management agency are in order to give his measurements a verifiable source and the ones directed towards Models.com and Male Model Scene are only for pictures demonstration only since they are not copyrighted images. The article is meant to demonstrate and discuss a trajectory in the modelling industry, not about an adoration page dedicated to the person talked about in the article. The tone of the article is neutral as required here in Wikipedia. I can see your concern by this matter since you like to keep articles in Wikipedia in order but this is not the case, as with other male model articles the objective is only to describe what a the model has achieved in his career and be notable by it and Arthur is a good example of what can be achieved and be noted for. So the article should stay live since he is notable in his field of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavoz (talk • contribs)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is way too fannish and the "sourcing" - oy! - but I think the model has notability. He's had a long and busy career in model terms, been the face of a number of high profile brands and ad campaigns, and had a lot of high profile work and exposure. I see this article  in the New York Times, from 2009, which discusses him at some length. And from a few years later, another NYT article here on him. Also see this 2011 Washington Post article (see page 2) which gives him quite decent coverage. This explains the significance of him (and two other models) being on the cover of a notable magazine run by the Vogue publishers. Also, he has had extensive coverage in Fashionisto, a print-and-online magazine with TWENTY pages of results from 2009 to 2013. I'm sure there are plenty more sources out there, but it seems to me that Kulkov is more than notable enough to have an article. Mabalu (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | speak _ 23:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - At least two NYT mentions, CHAOS Magazine profile, multiple cover shoots... sounds like notability for a model. squibix  (talk)  16:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The number of cover shots is not really relevant to whether the article is kept. It's the coverage in reliable sources.  As noted above, there is coverage in the NY Times and WaPo in addition to other industry/trade publications which represent the significant coverage needed to establsih that inclusion on Wikipedia is warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sourcing is very weak for this person. I do not see any Washington Post source (an editor says there is such a source); and the two NY Times sources are very marginal: one is a "fanzine" article about Crush magazine (not about the model); and the other is a 1 paragraph "Sunny Delight" item, which looks more like a PR release ("... athletic sandals and shorts by Adidas, hat by American Apparel..." ).   What I don't see is an article by an independent fashion industry magazine that  is about this model. --Noleander (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - See for the WaPo article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Alright. But someone should put that Wash Post source into the article. --Noleander (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole point of a wiki is that if someone thinks that something should be done then that someone can simply do it rather than say that it's some other someone's job. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am rather busy in real life right now, and don't have time to read the source, find where in the article it belongs, craft a sentence to paraphrase the source, and double check it.  I was just pointing out that a decent source, mentioned in this AFD, was not yet utilized in the article.   No need to get snarky. --Noleander (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2013 (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.