Talk:Kätlin Aas

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 January 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Estonia Low‑importance

Kätlin Aas is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles
Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles)
Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it
Maintain : Portal:Estonia
Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Estonia)
Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]