Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kätlin Aas


 * 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 no consensus. It seems clear that WP:GNG is not met, but the WP:N, which supersedes GNG, states clearly that an article should be kept if WP:SNG is met. A clear majority of arguments posit that SNG (via NMODEL) is met, but NMODEL merely point to entertainers in general. I presume the inference is that modeling for a major brand/show is a "significant role" in a "notable production" As this is not clearly outlined it weakens the argument, hence my no-consensus closure. The article meets WP:V, so not at issue. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Kätlin Aas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I realize she meets NMODEL but besides an interview (with Interview) in my Before I haven’t actually seen any independent significant coverage at all (for GNG if that wasn’t obvious, which on multiple occasions now I have been told supercedes any respective N-career). Trillfendi (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I’ve added and RfC to her talk page during this time Trillfendi (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep under WP:SKCRIT. Nominator acknowledges that the subject passes an SNG, and "I haven't seen any..." is not actually a statement about the article subject, so no valid rationale for deletion has been provided. Bakazaka (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at the article and you clearly see there are no reliable sources. So in my BEFORE I tried to find some that would contribute but “I haven’t really seen any”. It’s that simple. Being friends with other models is not GNG.Trillfendi (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a speedy keep is to save the community's time and attention. You're asking editors to go out and look for more sources for someone who you already acknowledge passes the appropriate SNG. So, let me ask it this way: do you think that making absolutely sure that someone who passes an SNG also passes GNG is so valuable to our readers that it should consume the community's time right now? Bakazaka (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Her meeting NMODEL for closing Prada (which I believe is something people could possibly find sources for) is only my opinion. It’s certainly not the threshold for NMODEL such as a cover or contract. I’m operating with the presumption that there may be reliable sources in other languages that another editor may present that I haven’t found.Trillfendi (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you're operating with the presumption that she's notable, and there's still no valid rationale for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said at the beginning she may meet NMODEL. But as the deletion of Julia Dunstall proved: if the model doesn’t meet GNG then NMODEL is irrelevant in that space. You can have your opinions. Trillfendi (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the community's time and attention are limited and valuable, and I reiterate my speedy keep !vote. Bakazaka (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because you don’t “agree” with my rationale for deletion doesn’t mean it’s not “valid”. Clearly it was proposed for a reason—a reason I stand by. If anyone else wants to vote on this or disagree with me they’re welcome to.Trillfendi (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The consensus at Julia Dunstall was that she failed NMODEL as well as GNG. By contrast, KA seems to pass both NMODEL and GNG, e.g. and multiple other RS one can find doing WP:BEFORE. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since when are “model wall” interviews where they ask ~10 random “what’s your favorite thing” questions notability? That doesn’t qualify as GNG. I have seen Wikipedia articles outright rejected for that. Can you find an actual article that goes in depth about her like a Vogue? I sure can’t. Vogues frequently profile new or upcoming models even if it’s only a few paragraphs. As it stands now, “she has modeled for so-and-so (with no reliable sources to back it up), she’s friends with so-and-so (irrelevant) and an obsolete link that she’s not included in doesn’t hold up.Trillfendi (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * A source just using a picture as part of a slideshow of 30 other models is not notability. “Kätlin Aas (2009)” is not notability. Directories are not reliable sources for notability (some administrators don’t even consider models.com a reliable source at all but I disagree with them there). If she had significant coverage, then those things would only serve as back up.Trillfendi (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete what we need is independent, 3rd party, indepth secondary coverage. Interviews and pictures in slide shows are not this. Even if they were that is no argument for speedy keep at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You get it. It’s truly disarming that some here think models.com / slides / directories makes all policy regarding general notability and secondary coverage thrown out of the window for this “special occasion”. Trillfendi (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - to pass both NMODEL and GNG. Person passes an SNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please point out to me where you see any GNG because of the sources in the article from a YouTube video to directories to a broken link at “Lexposure.net”, I see none. Per Johnpacklambert, there’s really gotta be in-depth secondary coverage for her.Trillfendi (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG guidelines. Sheldybett (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Will somebody—anybody—show me where they see GNG here? I.e. significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Trillfendi (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:NMODEL. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I proposed this on the basis of GNG. Trillfendi (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but she does not need to pass the GNG since NMODEL is applied to fashion models anyway. Sheldybett (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically the reason I’d nominated this was because of a previous of a model who met NMODEL but not GNG (only tangible reference was a Teen Vogue interview from over a decade ago). The same situation is happening here. No independent, reliable sources that go in depth on her career. All that’s here is one sentence of a smattering of jobs. It’s just not it. Trillfendi (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:NMODEL. "I haven’t actually seen any independent significant coverage" isn't grounds for deletion. ExRat (talk)
 * Because significant coverage clearly doesn’t exist for her, as evidence by no one else even finding any, including my Before. That’s why I proposed deletion because of GNG, NOT because of NMODEL which I saw as a similar case to Julia Dunstall. Clearly I already addressed that in the nomination. but if people can’t see that I’m definitely not above renominating in the future if no improvements are even made. And doing a Prada show isn’t even the standard of NMODEL.Trillfendi (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment A lot of her accomplishments are listed at New York magazine - and those are merely up to 2012. I've Googled her and came up with a few references. Sure there are more, but I am not that invested, TBH. Maybe I'll look again tomorrow. ExRat (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realize that NYMag’s model profile is simply a directory (a defunct one at that, they haven’t updated anybody’s profile since around 2012) that doesn’t establish notability for any model, right? Trillfendi (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Never said that the site I gave establishes her notability. Merely stated there is a list of accomplishments there that could possibly be sourced. Still a "Keep" for me. ExRat (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC
 * ... There are no reliable sources for it. That’s why the article is being proposed for deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment She has appeared on the cover of Ukrainian Vogue and Vogue Netherlands, as well as in editions of Italian, Mexican, and Chinese Vogue. That, I am quite sure meets WP:NMODEL. There are sources for some of this stuff out there. ExRat (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * “gofugyourself”.com definitely isn’t one (whoever put that should be ashamed). All folks can seem to muster up are the agencies she’s contracted to (y’all know better) or models.com. Trillfendi (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment How many Vogue covers are we up to now? Three? Four? ExRat (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to FMD, she has those Vogue covers (brava), but if only people could actual sources for them that aren’t directories or primary sources. Ay, there’s the rub. And the Wikipedia articles for those editions, sadly, are unsourced and rely on original research primarily by a redlink user named Arjiansumanti. In my experience, some editors believe certain lower circulation markets of fashion magazines are non-notable while others think even far flung locations like Vietnam count.Trillfendi (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "doing a Prada show isn’t even the standard of NMODEL"? WP:NMODEL states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The Vogue article 'Why Prada’s Model Casting Matters' (referenced in the article) says "Prada remains the ultimate “get.” The prestige and visibility that come from being on the Prada runway is incomparable—whether you’re a newcomer having your first big moment or a star returning after a lengthy hiatus. As a result, Prada’s castings have become the barometer by which other shows are judged, as well as an arbiter of industry beauty norms." And it goes on, "Prada consistently launches careers, and though not every model selected for a Prada exclusive contract goes on to greatness, the brand’s success rate is enviable. Those chosen to open the show, walk in it exclusively, or debut via a Prada campaign are essentially winners of modeling’s golden ticket". That, to me, says that opening a Prada show is significant, and the other brands she has modelled for also have notable shows. And you yourself said that she meets WP:NMODEL in your nomination.
 * Not being able to see the article about Julia Dunstall, I can't see what she did - but the Delete votes all seemed to assume that WP:NMODEL requires SIGCOV. However, WP:ENT does not specify coverage, unlike, for example, WP:AUTHOR #3, which does specify that the "significant or well-known work or collective body of work. ... must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I do not see Julia Dunstall as an example to follow in AfD - it just happened that all the editors who voted there followed you in assuming that WP:NMODEL requires SIGCOV. I think that is a misinterpretation of WP:NMODEL. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is saying NMODEL and GNG automatically have to contradict each other, because obviously, every article is different. Some just happen to be both. The case with Dunstall is that though she did notable work such as Balenciaga (if we’re grasping for straws), there were simply no way to verify anything. We searched but just couldn’t find. I’m well aware of the “value” placed on a Prada show, that’s why I created Lineisy Montero and Anok Yai, for example. And that’s why I acknowledged that doing the Prada show could be an NMODEL. I never said it was definitive, it was just really matter of my own opinion and presumption. But where are the independent sources? That’s the thing. The thing no one can seem to find because believe me, I tried. The difference is that Montero and Yai have many sources to back them up, including an independent Harper’s Bazaar article that gave many details about Montero’s nascent career and a long Washington Post profile for Yai. Every model who does Prada doesn’t automatically go on to have the prestigious career that it’s said to be a launch pad for. That’s just not how the industry is. Every model who does Prada doesn’t automatically get a Wikipedia article. If that was the case, then Madison Leyes would have an article. If a model has notability, I’m sure she’d have more sources for her career.


 * Also, you can’t reference her agency for a job. It’s a primary source connected with the subject. Trillfendi (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added some sources that verify that she modelled for some of the brands mentioned. They are not SIGCOV, but if you're concerned about verifying that she had a career after Prada in 2009, they do verify that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I know she’s had a career after Prada (I didn’t find out about her until 2016), it’s just that there has to be reliable sources for it. Emphasis on reliable. Trillfendi (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment At this point if all people can manage to do is muster up slide show images with no captions, and directories, then what I said about GNG is vindicated. No one can find a Vogue profile of any kind? I went to the last page of Google trying to. Trillfendi (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply NYMag, NYT Magazine, and Vogue are all RS whose statements about KA can be considered accurate and whose interest in KA demonstrates her notability as a model. She had a smashing debut in 2009, which many different sources talked about. This was not a case of her "doing" a show but of her opening for Prada and (more unusual) closing for them. Notability is not temporary but even now, a decade later, she is getting covers and other major appearances, getting mentioned by name in articles that are not specifically about her. Why? Because she is a notable model. There are multiple interviews of KA, in Interview magazine and on YouTube, because she is considered notable as a model. Your statement that "the deletion of Julia Dunstall proved: if the model doesn’t meet GNG then NMODEL is irrelevant" is not proved or even supported by that discussion, where 3 of the 4 Delete !voters specifically said that Dunstall failed NMODEL. Most of the people following this AfD agree that KA is notable. Instead of learning from this, you assert that you will create a new AfD if this one does not go your way: "if people can’t see that I’m definitely not above renominating in the future." Considering how many articles people usefully AfD every day (we all owe thanks to those people!) it is amazing that nearly half the articles you proposed for deletion have been Kept or even Speedy Kept. If you try to learn from what other people say in these discussions, rather than just arguing for your own point of view, you will become a better editor. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ostensibly you misunderstand the purpose of what NYMag profiles were meant to be (I’m just thankful they’re archived now that any and all model coverage now goes to The Cut). Thousands of unnotable models have them just as top models do and everyone in between*. Isn’t the purpose of a Wikipedia article to have in-depth, independent significant coverage to substantiate such information? You also misunderstand what a Model Wall style interview is. One source from T magazine with a few random questions like “what’s your favorite tv show?” can’t hold up an entire article. Then unknown Emily Ratajkowski got an entire editorial by NYT typically reserved for politicians just for being in a music video if you want to measure it that way. If that Vogue article about Prada models is anything to go by, then having given more space to Willow Hand and calling her a “key catwalker”, why was Hand’s page declined when another editor drafted it? It wasn’t formatted that well so I went in and fixed it up to get it approved, but all career information was there and she’d been noticed by Harper’s Bazaar? That same Vogue article mentioned Maartje Verhoef whose page was declined several times by another editor’s work because she quote “wasn’t shown to meet notability by the ‘simplest standards’” even though there were like 5 paragraphs of very detailed career summary and the same references you’re trying to justify! I fixed that one too but I digress. Since the hell when is YouTube considered a reliable source when I simply put that video there to clarify the chosen pronunciation of her name?


 * This isn’t about me. Perplexed why you would even “track” the ratio; I propose articles for deletion on criteria I believe it fits and let other editors decide what should be done based on their interpretation of those rules. Whether articles are kept or deleted I really don’t care. The only reason I’d renominate if I see the same problems persist over a period of time. Nothing about the process is personal or an indictment. But now the goal posts have now become musical chairs. The same reason you want to keep this article is the very same thing that gets articles declined or deleted time, time, time, and time again! Chase Carter has a Maxim cover, appeared in SI Swimsuit, profiled regionally, and by Fox News and Nylon. Declined until I pointed out the hypocrisy. Alanna Arrington...it took the likes Vogue US UK and AUS, W, Instyle, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch for her page to get approved and she’d been widely covered for her VS Fashion Show and fashion week jobs like opening Altuzzara. Aas doesn’t even meet scratch the surface of that significant coverage but I’m wrong for pointing it out? *So what should be done about Draft:Laragh McCann? A model who, like Aas, has a NYMag profile indicating that she was also a Prada exclusive in her career, debuted at Louis Vuitton, had a Valentino campaign, etc. I quickly realized upon drafting it that she would not meet GNG but she would obviously meet NMODEL. The administrator declined it because in her view there is “no evidence of notability” even though there are 5 sources given on her modeling and film work. I contacted her and she said “GNG outweighs subject specific guidelines”. Exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time!!!


 * I have no opinion as to whether this should be deleted or not, but must point out that the nominator has been canvassing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I sure did, because I believe his understanding of policy is very, very much needed here for this anomaly. He perfectly explained it over at the AfD for Carrie Salmon (which I nominated 6 days after this). I didn’t ask him for votes, but for comment.Trillfendi (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that what you posted there was a violation of WP:CANVASS, being about as far from neutral as it's possible to get and with the target clearly being picked bacause you thought that that editor would agree with your position. As I said, I haven't looked into notability so am neutral when it comes to keeping or deleting this, but I can see that by your canvassing you have poisoned the water to the extent that it will now be difficult to come to a consensus to delete this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn’t know WP:CANVASS was a thing, to be honest, so I’ll admit that I was ignorant in that sense. But I didn’t ask him to come here to agree with me. I asked him to explain the policy regarding notability for models, which is not about what I agree with but how it’s applied to all models. Whether the article is kept or deleted, notability for models regarding directories will have been changed henceforth because expample after example has shown that adminstrators (not involved with this particular AfD but on previous declinations of article creations) do not see models.com or directories as reliable sources, and that notability can’t be derived from mere mention. So that has made it quite confusing how this should be handled given that some think that directories give notability and improve article quality. That’s the standpoint I have been operating from since the jump. Trillfendi (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * “In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.” This has precisely been my intention behind having done it! I have no control over what people say or if / how they vote. Hell, he may even disagree with me. We just need to sort this NMODEL policy out since we all seem to have divergent understandings on how it correlates with GNG. Trillfendi (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Wow. Canvassing. Calling for an RfC on the article's talk page while this article's nomination is still being discussed. Walls and walls of text. All because the voting hasn't gone your way. I was actually entirely finished with this discussion until I read the "“there’s a “we should keep it because she’s Estonian” bias over there by some editors as well” comment on the page you were canvassing. Are you kidding me? I wonder who that is directed at? Where in this discussion anywhere have I (or, anyone) stated this article should be kept because she happens to be Estonian (as I am)? There are plenty of crappy articles and stubs on Estonians who have little or tenuous notability that I would happily see go. You have made this accusation up whole cloth. "This isn't personal." Obviously, it is; you are seething that some of the articles you created for submission were declined. You even brought it up in the RfC you created. Now, you are just being spiteful and an obstructionist. As I already told you initially, I am not invested in this article. Whether it stays or goes, that's fine. But in all politeness, your behavior has been quite outrageous. Look, things don't always go your way. Accept it instead of lashing out. ExRat (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not care what “goes my way” on the Internet. When I say it’s not personal, it’s just that. I have no human emotion staked in what happens this certain article or any. But what I cannot stand for is every rule about general notability being torn up.


 * I called for an RfC specifically because going forth with ALL model articles there is a dire need of clarity on how directories contribute to notability or quality and general notability despite many many administrators stating otherwise. If this article is kept because NMODEL supercedes general notability that has to be applied to EVERY model’s article. The same rationale you have for keeping this article is the same rationale that gets model articles declined or deleted no matter who created it. I am not seething that articles I’ve created had been—evidently they were already created for me to have shown the history. I use the adminstrator comments on those to inform how I contribute in the future. And for what it’s worth... none have the 65 articles I have created so far have even come into the AfD space, so I must be following these policies right somehow. Now if you actually read what I said, I’m pointing out that administrators said that with the sources of models.com, the same ones used to justify keeping this article despite no signifcant coverage, notability is not met. And those other 3 pages which weren’t even my creation, I simply fixed them to be resubmitted and created, said the same thing. I legitimately wanted to know if NMODEL > GNG despite adminsitrator comments, then an article like Draft:Laragh McCann should be approved in that case. She has an NYMag profile after all... isn’t that what we’re going by here? (Whether it’s approved or not, I don’t care.)


 * Let it be known that I also have no feelings in who votes keep or delete because that’s everyone’s own choice. What I’m pointing out is the abject hypocrisy of saying NMODEL > GNG with no significant coverage from independent reliable sources when that is not the case any where else. I canvassed his page because he understands the NMODEL policy clear as day and I think he should expound on it in a situation like this. My comment about Estonian bias was flippant but when this article has “improved” in quality in the scope of WikiProject Estonia simply because of the deemed—unreliable models.com source, I presumed.


 * If I was “lashing out” about I would just blank pages but that’s not what we do here. We propose deletion based on policies. It’s just unfortunate that my ENTP personality makes me have to go back and forth bringing facts. Take care. Trillfendi (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete GNG supersedes the subject-specific guidelines, and in this case there's not enough independent coverage to be able to write a neutral article that's not a permastub. (Disclosure: Trillfendi did mention this discussion on my talk page). However, I don't think that her behavior violates canvassing and request that commentators above assume good faith. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 05:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ‼️ And I just want to say before anybody puts their foot on my neck and types me a black eye that I was on Buidhe’s talk page on Saturday about her review of Draft:Laragh McCann and how to approach it with regard to other people’s opinions on model notability vs. GNG here. I was not in any way there for canvassing like I did on Bearcat’s talk. I just wanted to be fair and tell her I had included her opinion in my previous comments.Trillfendi (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The very first part of WP:N clearly says that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it passes either GNG or one of the specified SNGs. Saying "GNG supersedes the subject-specific guidelines" does not accurately reflect WP:N. In this case, the notability issue is settled by passing NMODEL, independent of passing or not passing WP:GNG. Your point about the possibility of a permastub is obviously a reasonable thing to bring up, but that falls under WP:PAGEDECIDE, a separate section of WP:N that discusses what to do if a presumed notable subject might only ever be a permastub. Clearly worth discussing! But it has no bearing on the GNG vs. SNG notability issue, at least how WP:N is currently written. Bakazaka (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I am not convinced that she meets the SNG either. NMODEL redirects to NENTERTAINER, which states that "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." This is pretty subjective. If her role is all that significant, how come there's no RS discussing it? buidhe</b> (formerly Catrìona) 09:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since I haven't argued for her passing NMODEL, and instead have simply accepted the nominator's assessment of NMODEL in good faith (hence my Speedy Keep !vote above), I'm not sure what to tell you. Scrolling up, there is some discussion of Prada shows and so forth that might inform your question. Bakazaka (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ENTERTAINER also has the options of notability because the person "has a large fan base or a significant cult following", and/or because the person "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Both of those, obviously, are criteria that a model can easily meet even if having acting roles isn't normally on the menu for most models. Whether they're met here or not, I can't say — but by singling out the ENTERTAINER criterion that clearly only applies to actors as the be-all and end-all of notability over the ones that leave room for non-actors, you're making it sound like a model has to cross over into acting before she can satisfy NMODEL, which is very definitely not the case. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You have obviously done nothing wrong, but Trillfendi's messages to Bearcat and you clearly violated WP:CANVASS as the recipients were chosen on the basis that they had agreed with her position before. The message to Bearcat was sent in ignorance of WP:CANVASS, but the message to you was sent after I had pointed out that this was unacceptable behaviour. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition, when you go "forum shopping" as you did by opening first an RfC at Talk:Kätlin_Aas and immediately a second RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion, you should have notified the people currently taking part in this discussion, nearly all of whom disagree with you, of your forum shopping. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When I notified the people of the first RfC (ubi supra), was I not barked at for even doing an RfC during an AfD? 🤔 I only did the second RfC at the advice of Buidhe’s comment, since it’s now an issue that concerns fashion-related articles (not what I intended this to become but here we are). Trillfendi (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be really good if you could take this less personally. Your "Estonian" comments when you canvassed are really over the top. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm doesn’t translate in print. Like I explained earlier, it was a flippant remark. I wasn’t serious. Trillfendi (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Evidence of notability WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline" [such as NMODEL] . Aas is a notable model, who made a smashing debut in 2009 and now, almost a decade later, is still doing top-level modeling and getting name-tagged in articles about other things. As for coverage in independent sources, the article links to interviews with Aas in Interview (magazine) and The New York Times Style Magazine. Vogue in 2012 mentions her as "many now-famous names." Fashionista includes her as one of the "top fashion models of 2012." Vogue Italy calls her "The Estonian model that has enchanted designers." The sole criterion for notability of a model should not be the existence of lengthy in-depth interviews, if only because (in the interviews of Aas that we have) she is not very articulate. It deprives our readers of a useful resource if we delete articles about notable people they might want to learn more about. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here you go again with the “smashing debut” partisan yet for some reason, the only source given for jobs is models.com who doesn’t even bother to link to actual sources, and slideshow images). That’s what I’m talking about. If the debut was as smashing as you say, more reliable sources would be out there. You know who’s several decades into her career and got a Vogue cover last year? Debra Shaw. But she doesn’t even have an article currently. Chinese model Jing Wen, who is also best known for her Prada work (including being in the Prada show just two days ago) had a breakout so successful that American Vogue almost immediately started calling her a top model, yet the comments initially declining the drafts said: “Establishing notability requires significant coverage. In its current state, this submission would likely be deleted because it consists mostly of promotional material. There is an overwhelming list of cites to the model's agency. The other coverage seems to be brief mentions and publicity, such as the paragraph in the cbsnews cite. None of this contributes to notability.” This is the standard I abide by. How is Aas’s article any different from that? When I proposed deletion, it looked like this. 2 sentences for career including an obsolete models.com link and for some reason someone decided it’s relevant to put who her friends are in the career section. Almost 0 reliable sources. You can’t tell me that met NMODEL just because it says she did a smattering of jobs. You can’t reference a model’s agency for career highlights and say that’s notability or improving the article-she’s employed by them. Yet that’s all people seem to come up with for verifying covers and what not, agencies and directories. If you want to see what an actual, substantial New York Times interview / profile with models looks like it’s something like this. It’s not from the Sunday T magazine asking “what time do you get up in the morning?” Fashionista is a blog, for God’s sake. And it doesn’t matter whatsoever whether she’s articulate, things shouldn’t be different for her than other articles. Trillfendi (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether this article is kept or not will be decided by 1) Wikipedia policy and 2) the existence of RS that demonstrate her notability according to NMODEL. If a topic is notable, as demonstrated by RS, it deserves an article. This AfD has ZERO connection to your rejected articles about models you prefer to KA. Please take a look at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and note particularly WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. This article now has many RS supporting the career information of KA. Your statement above "the only source given for jobs is models.com" is just patently false. I am adding more RS about her debut, since you apparently doubt that it happened or that it was noteworthy. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What hypocrisy. Other stuff exists and arguments to avoid are an ESSAY not a policy. “This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.” This isn’t about models I “prefer” but obviously you feel that way because you keep talking about her “smashing debut” (who talks like that?) with blithe un-neutrality. This is about the consistency of standards applied to every model. And the pages were created when I rectified the issues commented; that’s what I’m pointing out if you use your reading comprehension. You can check them out if you want. Some of the pages were started by other editors anyway. It’s not about the history of the article but fact that notability had to be evidenced with significant coverage from reliable sources no matter what job a model does. Now what is patently false about the fact that the ONLY citations given for the sentence “Aas has also appeared in Polish,[23] Mexican,[13] German,[24] Chinese,[25] Russian,[26] Japanese[27] and Italian editions of Vogue.[28]” and the Vogue Portugal cover is indeed models.com? Patently goddamn true. See for yourself. Trillfendi (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that notability must be established by RS. Where we disagree is this: you say that even if a model passes NMODEL (based on reliable sources, we both agree) then the model must also meet GNG to have an article. Wikipedia policy disagrees with you there and so do I. I think KA is notable according to Wikipedia policy because her career (NMODEL) can be documented using RS such as The Cut, NY Magazine, Interview Magazine, Vogue, Vogue Italia, and others. I am a "partisan" only in the sense of arguing for the article to be kept as notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s not “Wikipedia policy” that disagrees with me, it’s you. The prevailing belief among lots of editors on this website is that just having jobs isn’t enough, there has to be independent significant coverage (GNG) in tandem with it. Until this AfD came along it was an uncontroversial norm. I’m sure you didn’t know this girl even existed until you decided you just wanted to turn this into one-upmanship. In your mind, my opinion is invalid because you think I’m wrong and I should be silent. Or somehow, this is about my “preference” (if you really care, I love a raven-haired beauty), and I shouldn’t dare look for solutions to a gaping dissonance. After making approximately 59 articles so far about fashion models, one could surmise I’m learned on the subject by now. When someone has to grasp for straws (Lexposure.net is not a real thing.) and still can’t find the majority of her work without resorting to slide shows and directories, something doesn’t add up. And once again, NY Magazine’s defunct model profile pages have nothing to do with notability, that’s probably why they don’t even do it anymore. If that were true, go make an article for the hundreds of models in that outdated database that still labels Cara Delevigne as a newcomer. Trillfendi (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy trumps "belief among lots of editors" until and unless those editors change our policy. Wikipedia policy reflects the decision of many editors on how our encyclopedia should be run. For example, the part of WP:N you disagree with, that "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." (quoting Wikipedia:N as of January 14, 2009 was already Wikipedia policy a decade ago and has not been changed, despite any local consensus to ignore it. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.” That is what “a lot of editors” completely unrelated to this AfD abide by for every subject but YOU think NMODEL is exempt from that just because of the brands they work for. Appearance is not notability. You think being remotely mentioned in a list by Vogue is being profiled by Vogue (it’s not...), you think a compilation of runway slideshows is a Vogue editorial (it’s not...), you think 10 question random questions by T like “What’s on your iPod Shuffle?“ is equivalent to being profiled by the New York Times (meanwhile the actual New York Times give more career synopsis to newbies). An article can’t stand on bare bones. When it comes down to finding sources for her work all that y’all seem to find is modeling agencies, random blogs, and models.com. Whereas real magazines are supposed to have that information. Y’all even tried to throw a manufactured Twitter controversy in there. Trillfendi (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Presumed to be notable" is not the same as actually notable. How is one supposed to write a neutral, non-stub wikipedia article without significant coverage in multiple sources? <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">ui</b><b style="color: White">dhe</b> (formerly Catrìona) 16:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We all agree with WP:NRVE that "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." "Significant attention" refers to attention from those qualified to judge if the achievement was notable or not, for example writers at Vogue, The Cut, NYT Style Magazine, etc. can judge if a model is noteworthy or not. "Significant attention" does not necessarily mean long stories and interviews (few professors would be wikinotable if NPROFESSOR didn't trump GNG.) We have many stub and otherwise imperfect articles about notable topics. WP:CONTN and WP:PAGEDECIDE both address those concerns of yours. Neither supports deleting an article about a notable subject. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with stubs. Many articles in traditional paper encyclopedias would be considered stubs in Wikipedia. And, anyway, the question of whether it is possible to write an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources about Kätlin Aas is answered by the fact that it has been done so. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s no coincidence that her Estonian article et:Kätlin Aas is one sentence and absolutely unreferenced.Trillfendi (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, it really is. Have you seen the actual state of the entry for Karmen Pedaru at Estonian Wikipedia? I am Estonian and even I rarely edit on Estonian Wikipedia. Has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. Also, I see you have referred to the "manufactured Twitter" controversy. Postimees has the largest circulation of any newspaper in Estonia. Õhtuleht is the second largest newspaper in Estonia. Both WP:RS. Kroonika is also a very popular magazine (less reputable, more of a "gab mag", but still very popular). Gap Inc. publicly commented on the issue. Manufactured by whom? Also, I would tend to think, for a model, four Vogue covers and (at least) nine Vogue editorials counts as notable in the industry. Opening and closing a Prada show counts in the industry. You can quibble with the sources – they all flat out show the covers and editorials – so, you know she had them. In that profession, that certainly meets WP:N. Not all models of note become a Twiggy or a Naomi Campbell and can still be notable; their success is generally measured by their appearances on magazine covers and in editorials and in campaigns and on runways. They aren't all often known or notable for comprehensive details about their lives. You're arguing over a precedent, not this article. ExRat (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That has absolutely no relevance to this discussion, which is about whether we should keep this article on the English Wikipedia. There just doesn't happen to have been anyone at the Estonian Wikipedia, which, by the fact that there are orders of magnitude fewer people who understand Estonian than understand English, certainly has far fewer editors than the English Wikipedia, who has expanded the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are at least 25 unreliable souces in this article by now. Take them out and you’re left with maybe 4 at the most that could be considered reliable which for no reason are formatted to be blurbs at the bottom to clog space and distract from the fact that the majority of the others are from unreliable sources. (The fact that “Lexposure.net” keeps being put in there when it was nothing more than a BLOG, not an actual magazine, yet being reference as such, is the kind of shit I’m talking about, but what do I know). Half of her work, for whatever reason, is not verifiable. For example, “models.com” is referenced for her Vogue covers yet the source given for two of them is Facebook for crying out loud!!! And for Portugal, nenhum resultado encontrado. It’s a catch-22. Trillfendi (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All of those covers/editorials can be cited directly to the source magazines, which are reliable primary sources for their own content (just like books or TV episodes are reliable primary sources for their plot summaries on Wikipedia). Clearly the scanned images on models.com and similar sites provide a convenience for the reader, as not everyone has access to Vogue archives, and it's not exactly a controversial BLP claim at stake. But it's easy enough to meet the letter of the law by directly citing the issues in/on which she appeared, and leaving the readers to go find their own scans, or the Vogue Portugal photographer's website, or whatever. Bakazaka (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You say it as if it’s VA records, not content supposed accessible on a magazine’s website. The problem is, the circulation of Vogues that aren’t the Big Four (American, British, Paris, and Italia and I’ll put Vogue China and Australia as honorable mentions) is so low that they’re almost irrelevant. Big Four Vogues get the most prestige therefore its models get the most coverage. Sara Grace Wallerstedt for example, her first cover was Vogue Italia. Of course that helped put her nascent career on the map for American Vogue to go all the way to her hometown for an editorial in their magazine. Regional Vogues aren’t on the same calibre, unfortunately, so no one besides models stans even know which cover is which. They don’t get the same publicity. If Wikipedia allowed social media as references it’d be a different case, people could just pull random Instagram posts from their account for things. The idea of “but she has a Vogue cover!” yet no reliable sources for 3/4 is ineffectual. Frankly, one is better off using a photographer’s website than “models.com” in a situation like that, but that’s probably not appropriate here. Trillfendi (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While I don't entirely follow what you're saying, it sounds like you have a lot of thoughts about gradations of importance between different international editions of magazines. That would be a great thing to discuss on the RfC that you opened during this AfD (the 2nd RfC, not the 1st RfC), where some of the discussion currently is about proposing specific guidelines for NMODEL to help clarify these kinds of distinctions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Several times over.   (invited by bot to the RFC) Apparently it's accepted that she meets the SNG.  Structurally in Wikipedia that's enough. But if it didn't, you'd need an unusually stringent application of GNG to reject passage under GNG. I spot checked about 10 of the references that were independent articles (not just listings) and, despite lack of in-depth coverage of her in those 10, all supported real-world notability.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You say there’s lack of in-depth coverage. How is “stringent” to say the article should meet GNG? Still, from what people have tried to dig up from 6 feet under on Al Gore’s Internet, nothing goes beyond a single paragraph or even a sentence in several. You really believe that’s “enough”? In that case user Buidhe is right. This would always be a permanent stub unable to go any further. This is what I mean by we need ratification of an updated clearer level because there are many contradictions going on about this. Trillfendi (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * it appears that you have nominated this and other articles about models for deletion because some such articles that you created were deleted, and are looking for consistency in the application of rules. Such consistency does not exist in Wikipedia. If subjects nominated for deletion are clear-cut "keeps" or "deletes" then that will happen, but there is a large middle ground where the decision is based on the luck of the draw in who chooses to participate in the deletion discussion. I have seen many decisions that I strongly believe to be based on ignorance, but part of the wiki model is that we often have to let such things go rather than argue incessantly about them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You’re wrong—none of the pages I’ve created have ever been deleted. So that’s your ignorance. The only deletions were when I accidentally created a page when I meant to put it in the draft and requested it’s speedy deletion myself. That was Abolish ICE, approved months ago and another draft not submitted yet. All those other articles I referenced previously where drafts that have been approved long ago, even years. I simply took into account what the issues were and try to apply an even hand to every article. If anybody sees the need to propose deletion of any article I’ve created, no one is stopping them. I would expect them to go based on what they believe about it and let others put their input in. Trillfendi (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was ignorant. My advice, and it is only advice rather than any sort of argument against your position, is to stop investing so much time and energy into something as trivial as getting a Wikipedia article about a model who may or may not be notable deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What started as a simple acknowledgement that though she did Prada, she doesn’t have independent significant coverage, somehow turned into Lord of the Flies and shoot the messenger. I didn’t take it there. The outcome of it doesn’t affect me either way. This isn’t a crusade. If it was up to me this process would have been done quickly but I started the AfD so I might as well see it through. And then it’s on to the next one. I just can’t stand with hypocrisy, the same principles have to be applied everywhere. Regardless of it all, something has to change going forth. Trillfendi (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Some might say it is hypocritical that an editor who has stated unequivocally (over and over) in this discussion that this article has cited models.com as a source, but has used models.com as a source in nearly every article they have created about fashion models, as well as online boutiques, blogs, and the model's agencies as references – all things you have also taken issue with in this discussion. Just out of curiosity (though admittedly, it has no bearing on this nomination), how does an example article you created such as Julia Banaś compare to this article? Seems by your standards, that article should be up for deletion. Ticks everything you complained about in this nomination: models.com, blogs, boutiques, silly & fluffy "10 questions with...", and then random pictures with little to no coverage other than an image. Peculiar. ExRat (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, wow! revisiting afds that are over a week old, have just read this epic afd (over 8th words compared to around 550 in the article), as it is quite long i thought i would summarise it: 3 "deleters" (including the nominator), 7 "keepers", 2 neutral, nominator/deleters suggests Aas may be notable under WP:NMODEL but not enough indepth/significant WP:RS coverage, keepers say Aas meets WP:NMODEL (and some WP:GNG as well) and the coverage in the article is okay to use, all in all its pretty even, i reckon this article will be kept either outright ("keepers" may just have it on the sng, and not just because there are more of them) or as no consensus because there is good reasoning on both sides (btw, if any editors think i have got it wrong please send me a trout or two:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No comment. Just a wish to see this closed a.s.a.p. -The Gnome (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.