Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Shevchenko

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Shevchenko

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject doesn't meet the general notability guidelines as she hasn't received significant independent coverage. There's one human interest story in the town paper [1]. The other links are a promotional interview and examples of modelling work. – Thjarkur (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 7-year-old child model with a five-year modeling career, numerous fashion shoots and an appearance on a TV modeling segment has sufficient notability for a Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The TV show appearance is a brief demonstration of a wedding dress on a daytime talk show. The fashion shoots don't appear (to me) to make up for the lack of WP:GNG – Thjarkur (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. very few people know her.--NeujorK (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is personal opinion and not argument based on general notability guidelines which doesn't talk about a number of people that should know the object of the article. User:Elegantnetwork1 (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost creepy, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is personal opinion and not argument based on general notability guidelines User:Elegantnetwork1 (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough sources which demonstrates that he meets WP:BASIC. Grailcombs (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need way better sourcing than this to ever justify having an article on someone under the age of 10.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- general notability guidelines doesn't have age discriminations to be published User:Elegantnetwork1 (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with deletion comments above as general notability guidelines has requirements of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which the object of the article meets. According to WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it and also according to WP:SECONDARY secondary sources are not necessary independent sources. So the second reference is Los Angeles Magazine publishing the interview with the object's mother but the magazine is independent Los Angeles magazine. The first reference is russian newspaper talking about the object of the article. Some of other references are Getty images which is licensed stock images supplier taking photographs of high-level fashion shows only. Also according to WP:GNG there is no fixed number of sources required. And it also says Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. There are no more printed sources available in Russian printed newspapers that could be requested and should be counted in as reliable sources. The object is a fashion model that has worked with variety of high-profile brands and world-wide campaigns and high-profile fashion shows and TV shows. Most of people in the fashion industry know of her. User:Elegantnetwork1 (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the keep argument above me, there is only one secondary source that provides SIGCOV, not enough for a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least 2 of them, reference 1 and reference 2 that provide SIGCOV, right? the other reference provide additional proof of notable accomplishments of the object such as high level fashion shows, TV show, fashion campaigns such as Nike, Levi's, Nordstrom, etc. General notability guidelines clearly states: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. So we got 2 with very deep coverage and 10 additional with mentions. Reference 12 also displays all the brands that the object is famous for. According to reference 2 the object's photos were in storefront of every Nordstrom all over the US for Xmas. What do you think? User:Elegantnetwork1 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG isn't met. Ref 1 (Kimry Press) is a local-interest story, Ref 2 is an interview with her mother. The rest are horrifically, atrociously bad: providing Getty Images links to claim notability for a 7-year-old is just awful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Power~enwiki. I don't know what is creepy about her, but she is not notable (yet). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2021 (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.