Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polina Kuklina


 * 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Polina Kuklina
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I tried to do a Before to see if I could improve this article in any way before PRODD but the Notability tag is right. No sources found at all. Trillfendi (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Note the alternate spelling "Polina Kouklina", which is the name under which the article was kept at a previous AfD in 2010. I've added the link to that AfD, and a second "find sources" template for the alternate spelling. Bakazaka (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m looking at that AfD and it’s astounding how the article was kept with absolutely no research done beforehand. It’s like they walked passed the movie theater usher without even showing the ticket. Trillfendi (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added one reference I found, that verifies that she modelled for Alexander McQueen. I also found an interview in Elle, which I can't see a date for, and a blogpost that says that Marie-Claire France had a 10 page spread on her in their June 2011 issue. However, it seems that someone would need access to a print copy of that issue, as it's not online. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I could almost laugh. That Elle France “interview” is literally just 5 beauty tips under her name. Nothing remotely mentions her career. The “Switching models” blog is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination, it’s just somebody’s hobby. So out of all the jobs this article has said she’s done, the only thing that can be verified is Alexander McQueen via picture book. This is the shit I’m talking about. This is why I propose articles for deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting that the blog was a source, I said that it refers to an issue of Marie-Claire which has a 10 page spread on her. That IS a source, one which is not online, but which WP:NEXISTs. You may also note, if you have looked at the actual article, that I did not add the Elle interview as a reference, precisely because it is an interview. However, I disagree that it is not related to her career - she is a model, and how she maintains her beauty is directly relevant to her career. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it wasn’t added. It’s pointless. It offers nothing of value, nothing more than trivia about beauty proucts she likes, e.g. Shu Uemura (if she was the face of one of the companies it’d be a different story). They didn’t even brother to put a picture. Millions of women do the same thing on YouTube these days. Trillfendi (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Mgbo120 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable person. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe she meets WP:NMODEL. It really concerns me how much these AfDs rely on what can be found online. Some evidence for her career is available online (eg walking for Alexander McQueen, modelling for Nina Ricci), but much more is in print magazines. If we had access to a full run of Vogue, Elle, Marie-Claire, Cosmopolitan, etc, we would be able to cite article titles, issue and page numbers, etc. I don't have that access, listings of the relevant magazines on ecommerce sites or scans on blogs are not considered reliable, but the sources WP:NEXIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t know why people keep thinking magazine editorials aren’t available online when the industry went digital eons ago. The problem is you’re looking for page numbers when editorials are found by title and photographer, if one doesn’t know the name of those then it’s hard to find. Even still if there’s no reliable source for it it doesn’t matter. Scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel just can’t save this article. Trillfendi (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Along with the coverage RebeccaGreen has found, I've also found two more sources that cover the article subject:
 * 1) Squires, Mark. (2005). All through the night: A smoky bar, a grand piano, and a girl in this season's dramatic looks to steal your heart. Interview, 35(8), 202.
 * 2) Karimzadeh, Mark. (2005). Nina Ricci Dives in with Ads. WWD, 189(16), 8.
 * I consider there to be sufficient coverage, per WP:NEXIST, for this to be kept. feminist (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You honestly consider two sources, these two no less, to be "sufficient”? For this entire article? Out of all the jobs claimed here only 2 have been "found"? But not accessible? This is what’s wrong with NEXIST. The existence of something isn’t the viabiliy of something. Y’all act as though her career is pre-Internet. Trillfendi (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Trillfendi, I don't know how you think you know how I was searching for this person ("The problem is you’re looking for page numbers when editorials are found by title and photographer, if one doesn’t know the name of those then it’s hard to find.") Why on earth would I look for page numbers? I found and added the Marie-Claire France editorial, by searching for her name! If you know of the location of digitised archives of fashion magazines, please share that with us. As far as I have been able to see, some pages of some issues have been archived on the Wayback Machine, but there is certainly not a full run. And no, feminist did not say that she considered two sources to be sufficient for the entire article, she said "Along with the coverage RebeccaGreen has found". Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing everyone who actually finds sources for the articles you nominate for AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply stating my opinion based on the s of the matter isn’t "bludgeoning" — no one is "forcing" you to change your mind about anything. I’m sure you can think for yourself. What I obviously said is anyone can see editorials by using Google Images, I was talking about finding the reliable source for it. Archives are usually on the website of a magazine but they’re not always there with mid-tier publications. So still, even given those circumstances she doesn’t even meet NMODEL for one possibility of a job, a picture book, and 2 invisble sources that don’t even cover her career. There was already a general notability tag there before I even proposed deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a question about your opinion, Setting aside the question of sources and focusing on the article subject, if the subject actually did all the jobs that the article says she did, is she notable? Bakazaka (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In my honest belief, no. Trillfendi (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's helpful to know, since it means that finding the sources verifying those activities will not actually address your concern. It looked like two good faith editors were talking past each other, so maybe this will help clarify things. Bakazaka (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then why do you mention the lack of sources in your nomination? Why do you say that the sources are not reliable and not sufficient? I still think that she meets WP:NMODEL, and that finding reliable sources that verify enough of her work is sufficient to establish that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s just my opinion, while I recognize that if people want to keep the article then notability has to be established and consummate sources have to be found. I don’t think she had a broad enough sustained career to meet WP:NMODEL. I even resorted to seeing if there was an NYMag profile, but unfortunately not. Trillfendi (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Equal votes, no prejudice on early closure

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, this articles is worth having. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT isn’t valid commentary. Trillfendi (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, then the reasons that I give for keeping this article is because it has good sources, and this model has made covers of fashion magazines from four different countries, which I surely DO consider keep worthy. But you are right that I didn't give a good enough reason for keeping this article the first time, but I have now. Also the sources and reasons that the people who want to keep this article are giving seem fine to me as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I hate to play the devil’s advocate, but I’m struggling to see how appearances counted on one hand, a picture book, or one name mention in an aggregated article mitigates the notability tag. Thanks for contributing, nonetheless. Trillfendi (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, this site has numerous scans of covers/shoots, so she has been/was (looking at her website it looks like she is now behind the camera instead of in front of it) a model for a number of years, but unfortunately not significant enough to meet WP:NMODEL. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources are enough to establish WP:NMODEL. And WP:GNG applies as well. The additional sources discovered by other editors on this AfD also covers WP:NEXIST. BabbaQ (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * GNG? You’ve got to be kidding... (by virtue of the that the notability tag has been there for 9 years clearly that is not the case at all.) Trillfendi (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding.. The Keep-side has given great rationales for their !votes. While those who wants it Deleted has done drive-by "Non notable" rationales without substance. BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly you were the one lacking “substance”. On the last AfD of this you claimed just being a model was enough to keep this article. You presented no substance to keep it. The notability factor has NOT been addressed since! For 9 years, it’s been sitting there because the only source has been Fashion Model Directory which is not a reliable source. General notability is evidently NOT there! Not even an interview; one could even settle for a “Model Call” interview if it was out there. None of the sources added since contribute to notability in any way shape or form by even the most basic of standards. Appearance doesn’t equal notability especially given the fact that no one can manage to find “notable” work that aren’t on Pinterest scans by some random user. The people who have voted to delete have voted on the obvious failing of WP:GNG. The people who have voted to keep seem to think having your name mentioned in just one sentence is “enough” for notability. The reality is: it is not. Not for a model. Not for anyone. Trillfendi (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - there's evidence of appearances in major publications, including a Vogue.it link I just added, which starts to satisfy WP:NMODEL. However, I also like to see some biographical coverage that can be used to build a properly sourced article. That doesn't exist. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Article size is irrelevant to notability. If what is stated in the article is sourced and deemed notable and within guidelines it is notable for Keep. BabbaQ (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.