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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Xenia Deli (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no credible indication of notability here. We have a couple of directory entries/PR pieces ( [1], [2], [3]), a couple of magazine covers repeated across a few sites ( [4], [5], [6], [7]), and a gossip rag interview. What we don't have is any indication the subject meets WP:ENT, or WP:BIO ("significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"). - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I started this article because there were already articles for Deli in other languages, in German and Russian. I was not aware that this article was previously deleted or what the deleted article looked like, but I understand that it was deleted for copyright violations ( WP:CV) therefore the new article I started has nothing to do with it.

Soon after I created this article, User: Biruitorul added a tag to it for speedy deletion.

Admin Boing! said Zebedee checked the article and removed the speedy deletion tag because as he said "Previous deletion was for copyright violation, but this version is different".

After that Biruitorul added yet another tag, this time for deletion. It appears that Biruitorul wants this article deleted at all costs for his own reasons.

The article was reviewed by Danielklotz and passed, which means that the article is:

In New pages feed there is a green tick on the left of the title (Xenia Deli) which indicates to me that this article looks okay. Then comparing Article namespace checklist at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Article namespace checklist it looks to me that the article is:

• Referenced (8 References)
• Categorized (6 Categories)
• Other articles link to this article (three links: Xenia (name)‎, List of Victoria's Secret models and What Do You Mean?)
• There are versions of the article in other languages (in German and Russian)
• The article is properly formatted
• The article does not include libellous material

Reply: You have mischaracterized the meaning of my act of marking the article as "patrolled." None of your bullet points are correct about the meaning of my action. See Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#The_purpose_of_new_pages_patrol: "The primary purposes of new page patrolling are to identify articles which do not meet the criteria for inclusion and/or to tag them for any glaring issues that need attention. Most critical are copyright violations and defamatory material about living persons." By the time I patrolled this article, it had already been appropriately tagged for possible deletion by User:Biruitorul. In other words, making a page "patrolled" does not mean that it is in any way valid. Instead, it merely means that the page has been adequately reviewed and tagged. In this particular case, what my action of marking this page "patrolled" meant was, "Yep, this new article has been seen by other editors and is in the process toward deletion." Deletion seemed to me the correct way to go, and I favor the nomination to delete this article. -- DanielKlotz ( talk · contribs) 14:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

My apologies for my misunderstanding, but in my "alerts" I did get a message saying that "The page Xenia Deli was reviewed by DanielKlotz". I have now rephrased the above accordingly. Please let me know if this is okay with you.

In the meantime the article Xenia Deli has changed considerably. I would appreciate it if you could take another look at it and let me know your opinion. -- Odysses (○) 18:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the good-faith effort you have put into this article and the good nature you've shown in this discussion. I'm ok with this article staying now. -- DanielKlotz ( talk · contribs) 23:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply

The German version in comparison has only two (2) references, whereas the English has eight (8) references. I have included reliable sources such as Fashion model directory and Victoria's Secret models. Both are included in the German and Russian versions and (despite Biruitorul's claims) they are acceptable standard reference for biographies of models, for example: Ex. 1, Ex. 2, Ex. 3, Ex. 4, and so are the fashion magazines.

I have avoided to include references such as Instagram and Twitter since I don't considered them to be reliable sources.

The article on Deli has just started, I think it has the potential to expand and improve, so I don't see any reasons to delete. Any recommendations to improve it are welcomed. -- Odysses (○) 14:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete: the subject clearly fails to meet WP:ENT. More fundamentally there's a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The only source of any value is the Cosmopolitanm article, and you can't hang an entire article on that. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 14:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep: the article is hugely improved and so I am happy to change my !vote. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 07:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Jonathan, Deli is a model, not an actress. The "Basic criteria" according to WP:NMODEL "to be notable having received significant coverage in multiple published media" is, as the article states, that she signed to Elite Model Management (as well as other agencies) and she has been seen by thousands of readers in magazines and relevant fashion publications mostly in US, but also all over the world. The article does not include the multitude of all those magazines. I take it that you are not a regular reader of fashion magazines, therefore not familiar with fashion modelling. Likewise, most models in this list (that also includes Deli), do have already their own page in WP, which means that they do meet the above criteria, and so does this article. Second but not least, she has "a large fan base". This is subjective and can only be seen from the vast number of followers in Tweeter, Instagram, Facebook etc. that is not included in the article. -- Odysses (○) 18:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Given that WP:NMODEL links to precisely the same text as WP:ENT your whole argument is radically misonceived. However if she has received significant coverage in mutiple published media then you will be able to demonstrate this by the addition of suitable references, which so far you have clearly failed to do. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 20:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Clarification: Yes, both WP:ENT and WP:NMODEL links to the same page – no argument on this. And this (same) page provides the Basic criteria I describe above. -- Odysses (○) 20:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Jonathan, I see that you have created biography articles of physicists and other academics. Please bear in mind that references to academics are somewhat different than references to fashion models when it comes to writing a biography article. Here are some examples of other models refs: Ex. 1, Ex. 2, Ex. 3, Ex. 4. -- Odysses (○) 21:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for making my point for me. Example 1 is sourced to The Times, BBC News and New York Magazine. Example 2 is sourced to The Financial Times and the The New York Post. Example 3 is sourced to New York Magazine but is correctly tagged as lacking adequate reliable sources. Example 4 should be tagged in the same way as example 3. Your time would be more usefully spent locating and adding reliable sources. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 22:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the positive and constructive feedback. Following your advise I intend to add sources from New York Magazine, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror (web edition) International Business Times and Harper's Bazaar. Are they all reliable? -- Odysses (○) 12:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet the criteria for notability for models. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Regarding the notability of this article, we have already discussed the subject extensively in the previous passages of this page and it appears that this article has been improved considerably since it was nominated for deletion and it now satisfies the notability criteria. If you disagree, could you indicate the specific points of your disagreement, either from the above discussion regarding notability or from the General notability guideline? This could also help to keep and improve the article. -- Odysses (○) 19:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Draft and userfy perhaps as this is still questionable for WP:CREATIVE and questionable how deep the coverage is particularly for her own notability. At best, I would also go as far as a weak keep. Notifying 1st AfDer JMHamo. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the "weak keep". The article started on 27 January, only two weeks ago as a stub page, and after two weeks it has grown and improved to start class or higher. If the article is kept, it will grow and improve by other editors. Only yesterday User:Parkwells did a great editing job to upgrade the standards of this article. This wouldn't have happened if the article was userfied. -- Odysses (○) 18:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keeps The subject seems to have ample coverage in both print and on the internet. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 11:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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.