Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Mila


 * 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. Nakon 02:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Mila

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Model and actress. But is she notable? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Mila is a famous celebrity from Indonesia, you can check at google and other search engine :) Jagoganteng 19:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagoganteng (talk • contribs)


 * It is not up to us to go searching for the information if you want the article retained. You need to read Wikipedia's requirements for notability, and in particular Notability (people).  You need to demonstrate that notability by references to significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject is notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO.  Googling turned up only the standard PR fare sure to found for any actor no matter how unknown, pictures on the red carpet and stuff like that.  Msnicki (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unless some reliable sources showing notability are provided. Eeekster (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and other editors ought to remember not to WP:BITE. It is, in fact, up to us to go searching for information! We are not judging articles, but topics, and this topic is clearly notable as a cursory google search will demonstrate. I don't read Indonesian, but, and  all look reliable and significant to me. Pburka (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * These look like standard vapid red carpet and minor celebrity PR fluff to me. Here are the translated versions:  1, 2, 3.  Please explain why you think these look significant to you because they certainly don't to me.  Msnicki (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the impenetrable machine translations. Significant doesn't mean "serious" or "important." According to our policies, significant coverage means "that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." That you consider the material vapid does not make the coverage insignificant, and it seems pretty clear that, in addition to WP:GNG, the subject passes WP:NACTOR, as she has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. Pburka (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. Article is poorly sourced, but subject has sustained enough of a locally notable career to become a TV commercial celebrity endorser for multiple products. Pax 21:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 02:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: It Is up to US to look for information to improve articles, if we are going to bother to do something useful on this project. I do not read indonesian, but she appears to get significant coverage in major newspapers of that country.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources here and here and here, meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * They look like blogs and unreliable tabloids to me. The first one is in English and reports only that the subject likes to stay in shape, the absolute essence of trivial reporting.  Translated, the second  and third one   report that the son-in-law of the president said something about her in his blog (these are blogs about a blog).  You may think this satisfies WP:GNG but I do not.  I think they fail, per WP:NOTRELIABLE, as "websites and publications ... that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion."  Msnicki (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Jakarta Post is a daily broadsheet with circulation of 40,000 which won numerous awards for journalistic excellence. Perhaps topics like staying in shape, or who is dating who, or whether the president's son thinks a person is beautiful -- perhaps these topics may appear trivial but they are important to many people, particularly in certain industries such as fashion, film, entertainment. I do not see how this would lead anybody to the conclusion that these newspapers reported only "gossip" or untruths; for example, I believe that the president's son or son-in-law really commented publicly that he thought this actress was good looking, as reported. There is another source here. If you further examine this search, lots more articles turn up, although they are mostly in Indonesian (translators are not that good yet). Indonesia is an important country, and she gets lots of media attention there, clearly meeting the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not think these newspapers reported only "gossip" or untruths. I'm looking at the content, not the publishers.  It's quite possible that every one of these publishers has a sterling reputation for fact-checking and editorial control, exactly what we ask of a WP:RS.  I just never got that far because I don't believe the content, no matter who published it, amounts to more than trivial gossip and red carpet coverage.  WP:GNG demands "significant coverage" that addresses the topic "directly and in detail".  This is just not it.  I don't think we will agree and I'll tell you why.  If you were !voting that the subject must be notable based on articles you couldn't read and hadn't attempted to translate, I don't think content matters to you the way it does to me.  I totally respect that you're entitled to your view but I think WP:GNG offers more support for mine.  Msnicki (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 15:42, 20 February 2015 (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.