Talk:Kätlin Aas

RfC for quality and notability guidelines GNG / NMODEL

Let’s analyze, objectively, can we, everyone. Now 11 of the sources given here are of models.com slides. Some Wikipedia administrators express that models.com is not a reliable source. 1 source is fashionmodeldirectory.com aka the IMDb of models. Some administrators express that fashionmodeldirectory is not a reliable source, to stand on its own. 1 source given is Fashionista.com, with a one sentence quote. I’ve never seen Fashionista.com, which is a blog, considered as a reliable source. 1 source, which admittedly I placed years ago is of YouTube (goes without saying). 1 source is NYMag’s model profile which is not used to contribute to notability, if it really is for notability then the same logic can be used to refund the page of Julia Dunstall. 4 sources are simply slideshows of runway shows that are not editorials for Vogue magazine or even remotely related to Vogue magazins itself but for some reason wrongly identified as such. 1 source is about Prada’s casting standard where the subject is mentioned as part of a small group, while others get whole paragraphs. 1 source is T Magazine by NYT who ask her questions like “Twitter or Instagram?” and “what time do you get out of bed?” So that only leaves Vogue Italia, who has a brief career summary with a slideshow of runway shows. Having that only one independent source is not in any regard enough for general notability or significant coverage for a page. In any way shape or form. That’s why I proposed deletion of this page.

So how, under these circumstances, has the article “improved” in quality or general notability in any way? When that same standard was previously used to reject model articles with actual significant coverage such as Ari Westphal, Jing Wen, Alanna Arrington, Maartje Verhoef, and Willow Hand, and Duckie Thot, who had these same sources? Comments included “appearances do not contribute to notability”, “Not notable sources. Simply announcements and profiles,” and “Not satisfying our simplest standards as the sources are simply announcements, profiles, notices or similar; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone.”

Bear in mind, none of this is personal I’m just looking for clarity on it. Trillfendi (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: I suggest you bring this to the talk page of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion, since it potentially affects many articles in that area. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Buidhe Duly noted. Had I known all of this would snowball out of control into needing a referendum I definitely would have started there to begin with. Something’s gotta give. Trillfendi (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• The RfC creator has opened a new RfC elsewhere as requested, so I have removed the RfC tag from this discussion. Bakazaka (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Models.com, blogs, other non-RS

I am glad the article survived its deletion discussion. As the AfD closer noted, it has enough RS to pass WP:V. But it also has a lot of low-quality links to models.com, blogs, etc. that make it a lower-quality article than it can be. I appreciate the effort of people (including me) who found lots of information about KA on the internet and added it here in an effort to show notability. But in order to improve the article, I am going to remove all the items cited to models.com except for the link to KA's model profile there. I am also going to remove some items cited to blogs. If others disagree, let's discuss it on the talk page and work together to improve the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)