Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Dunstall


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Julia Dunstall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NMODEL We all know FashionModelDirectory is absolutely not enough for a whole article to stand on at all. I have not found reliable sources to establish notability for an article. Trillfendi (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is almost nothing written about her in reliable sources. Fails WP:NMODEL.- MrX 🖋 20:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Added a bit of text and six sources to the article. More can be found in newspaper/periodical database searches. Bakazaka (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In looking at those sources I only see mere passing mentions with focus on other models, not significant coverage. Can we get sources from actual fashion magazines? A Vogue? Does she have a cover to her name? A beauty contract? Trillfendi (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You nominated based on WP:NMODEL. Which WP:NMODEL criteria does the article's subject fail, in your estimation? Bakazaka (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Primarily on significant coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're talking about WP:BASIC, not WP:NMODEL. A model might pass WP:NMODEL and still be wiki-notable even if they do not pass WP:BASIC (same for WP:AUTHOR, WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:JUDGE, etc). Do you think that the subject's modeling accomplishments, if verifiable, pass any WP:NMODEL criteria? Bakazaka (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve always factored Basic into NModel when proposing deletion because unlike other careers their work is the most visible and documented. When you’re having a successful modeling career, magazines or newspapers quickly take note of that in real time and start interviewing them or writing about them. Most models’ careers are fickle and that’s where significant coverage comes into play. A girl could be Prada exclusive one year (extremely notable accomplishment) then just disappear the next. If there’s no sigcov then we’re not able to write an article, especially one that meets Wikipedia’s standards. Many models do some notable work but aren’t necessarily notable themselves. If a reliable source can even be found, I’d Balenciaga is the most prestigious of them. Trillfendi (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It makes complete sense to focus on WP:BASIC for subjects whose work is easy to find online sources to support (e.g. recent or superfamous people). But WP:NMODEL provides a way to avoid deleting an article on a notable subject even when such sources are not easy to find online. For this subject, many of the facts of her campaigns, runways, and even magazine covers (e.g. Vogue Homme, Fashion) are verifiable. Balenciaga, Chanel, and Gucci, for example, are already sourced to RS in the article right now, as are multiple ad campaigns. More sources that exist but are not added to the article also discuss her runway modeling (see WP:NEXIST). Other sources already in the article describe her as internationally successful and famous. In my opinion the subject is notable, arguably under WP:BASIC, definitely under WP:NMODEL. But I've already said way too much in this discussion, so I'm happy to hear other editors weigh in. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For almost 11 years this article had been all of 4 sentences. The problem around here is “some” admins don’t believe that “appearance = notability”. For example, I had to fight tooth and nail to prove notability for model Jing Wen’s article even after Vogue itself called her a top model. Even after walking for major brands like Dior, Prada, Chanel and numerous covers. Even after being listed as a “Top 50” model like Dunstall once was. The burden is on the proof. So maybe that is the case. Dunstall might meet NModel but not Basic. It’s up to the closer to decide if she has had: “significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, or has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.” My conviction is that no matter what job a model does, if we can’t find RS or she only gets a sentence or two in sources what’s the point of an article.Trillfendi (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Could only find one passing mention on subject from Vice Magazine, outside of that nothing more. Fails NModel and no WP:SIGCOV PlotHelpful (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks significant coverage, the sources given are generally minor mentions. That someone has appeared on the covers of fashion magazines or on runways or in campaigns is irrelevant, you need actual articles that focus on the person in some depth. Fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete no significant independent coverage, fails WP:NMODEL --DannyS712 (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2018 (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.