Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mona Johannesson


 * 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. While Starblind and Spartaz are dot on in their argument, I cannot ignore Milowent's keep statement. I find no consensus here for delete; yet, there is no prejudice towards an early AfD being opened in case the article is not improved.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  20:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Mona Johannesson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

nothing notable about this model. gets little coverage LibStar (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep When Vogue says "If ever a girl was destined to be "the next Kate Moss", Mona must be she.", you are notable as a model. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * if in 2004 Vogue said that you would think by 2010 she would attract lots of coverage from 2005-2010 as the new Kate Moss. unfortunately not. similarly labels are put on teenage footballers as future Maradonas etc that don't eventuate. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As the saying goes in Wikipedia: "Once notable, always notable." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * where is the significant coverage? magazines make claims all the time. WP:N is what we use. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete one of many many many working models, no evidence of significant coverage or extraordinary achievements. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The Google news results are mostly in German. Running it through Google Translator, I find one of the news results is entirely about her, giving detailed coverage.    D r e a m Focus  18:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That site appears to be a forum and I can't see how an on-line magazine attached to a forum counts under RS??? Spartaz  19:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)rtaz|Humbug!]]'' 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this canvassing? I notice RAN did not wikilink this page, maybe to ensure that it didn't show up on what links here. Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You could just email someone if you wanted to be backhanded like that. My experience with RAN's typical editing style is that he doesn't always wikilink in talk page conversations.--Milowent • talkblp-r  19:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That might explain the lack of wikilink but please explain how that isn't canvassing? Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is where you already know the outcome, or you demand a person vote a particular way. I did neither. I asked them to look and decide for themselves.
 * While Dream often votes keep when RAN does, he also is an editor who does substantive work to rescue articles, e.g., he found the german article he references. Dream has 62 people watching his talk page, i am sure editors of many philosophies do.--Milowent • talkblp-r  20:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you bother reading the link I put up there? The person canvassed was Col Warden not Dreamfocus. Where did I say it was dreamfocus? Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't, I just assumed it was and that's what started your skirt-the-line-of-AGF question. Its a shame that every attempt to get another editor to look at an AfD these days seems to elicit cries of canvassing.  Its the same general bunch that shows up on close-to-call AfDs anyway.--Milowent • talkblp-r  21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete lack of sources. I checked all the sources in the article. Of the published sources, 1 was an interview and therefore doesn't count, another was the Vogue one and looks more op-ed then anything else and the third, in the NYT was incredibly tangential. Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your engaging in original research when you "looks more op-ed", and can you please cut and paste the rule that forbids interviews and op-ed pieces from being used for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See below and its not synthesis to giove my evaluation of a source. It shows that I actually looked at it and considered. Doyou wish to comment on your canvassing Col Warden? Spartaz Humbug! 20:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Appropriate:	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Open. My notification met every criteria, so what's the beef? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Spartaz, your theory that interviews can't count for notability is a bit out of the mainstream. Pleas see my comment below, I added my !vote while you and RAN posted above me.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is from N ""Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, " OR defines a secondary source as "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event." This an interview is a primary source and a profile is a secondary source. This has been policy for years and years and there is nothing off base on my analysis of policy which has been the basis for establishing notability sources for a very long time. Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So an interview in Vanity Fair, or the New York Times magazine, or being interviewed by Larry King or Barbara Walters would not make a person notable? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen you argue this before and was unpersuaded. A blog from the model would be a primary source.  An interview is funneled though the secondary source of a journalist/publication, and I don't see the rational basis for distinguishing it, i.e., it would be absurd to rely on a secondary source article that simply relied on the prior interview article, and then claim that the latter source is a better indicator of notability.--Milowent • talkblp-r  21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if you are persuaded or not, the issue is whether my argument is policy based and that's for the closing admin to determine. Spartaz Humbug! 02:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sure that admin can consider whether an interview of the type cited in this discussion should be given the same weight for notability as a blog or website run by the subject. Your only reason for equating the two is labeling them all as "primary sources."  In the scheme of things, however, there are a slew more press references in Swedish that the nominator was not aware of and say she is one of the top models in Sweden.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  11:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And at the very least re the interview the paragraph that introduces the interview, the breakout box, and the paragraph of text captioning the picture (calling her Sweden's hottest model who won Elle's award for the year's top model) are secondary source material.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 11:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep(ec): The only debate in this AfD is whether the coverage is sufficient enough to meet WP:N.  I am inclined to think it is.  I am not surprised to see that editors like LibStar and Starblind disagree, while RAN and Dream Focus think she is sufficiently notable.  In a case like Johannesson it often comes down to a judgment call and how hard we look, and the outcomes in these AfDs are not always consistent.  The oft-repeated claim that she is/was the next Kate Moss is somewhat hyperbole, but not completely something to disregard.  Numerous magazine covers  (numerous covers of Elle Sweden), and spreads  (warning: tasteful nudity), and other references (  - swedish columnist in Expressen refers to her as "one of our most successful models", see "att Mona är en av våra mest framgångsrika modeller"; another Expressen article (Feb 11, 2007)  says she is one of the top models in Sweden ("Mona Johannesson, 18, segrat. - Mona har blivit väldigt stor" - basically, she has triumphed, she has become big); another Expressen blurb lists her as third sexiest swedish woman (calling her a supermodel) ; Aftonbladet lists her 4th of Sweden's top models  (Nov. 15, 2009); Aftonbladet July 25, 2006 piece  (full text behind pay wall, its the "Att vara" article); Svenska Dagbladet article (October 5, 2008) lists her as one of four most sought-after Swedish models, etc.  Thus we can safely conclude she's not just another run of the mill model.  (Note these are three of Swedish's highest circulation papers, I searched their archives.)  This AfD is not unlike Articles for deletion/Sigmund Borgundvåg, its more difficult to find scandanavian sources because they don't all seem to be on google.  But in the end, I think the coverage is sufficient that deletion would not benefit the project.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  19:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep i am questioning why this article was put up for Afd at its current version... hmm. I say strong keep anyhow,.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. no explanation is provided of how this meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could be sources found in the AfD, leaving him somewhat incredulous at the nomination. Seems obvious to me.  However, he is coming in after sources have been found.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  15:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   chatter 22:45, 12 October 2010 (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.