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 keep. The discussion clearly and thoroughly examines the concerns of the nominator and there is a thorough review of the sourcing in the article along with an examination of how the sources do, in fact, qualify as reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Model who fails WP:NMODEL and WP:BIO. Coverage is a mix of name drops, interviews and listing pages. No real coverage to establish notability. scope_creep ^Talk 09:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep At this point it’s farcical how people who don’t know absolute shite about fashion now want to delete every new model page when there are hundreds of articles that solely rely on defunct directories still here. Where is the "name dropping "? How does this article not follow the format of EVERY fashion model article on this website? You must detail the work a model has done (yes, that means naming the designers or brands with citations for verification) in order to encyclopedically describe their career... as models. Common sense. What fails "NMODEL"? The category that just weeks ago needed reinterpretation that people still haven’t agreed upon. Do you even know what opening a show or being an exclusive means? Is the Sunday Times all of a sudden not coverage now? An in-depth article that leads with For the Dutch model Birgit Kos, it was the beginning of a career that has since achieved supermodel status, with catwalk appearances and advertising campaigns including Lanvin, Etro and Versace and the new Hugo Boss fragrance. Yet multiple reliable sources including at least 3 Vogues also describe her as a supermodel. The so-called listings supplement what is already in in-line citations. Duh. There is a fundamental ignorance of the subject here. Trillfendi ( talk) 16:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails to establish notability.— Chowbok ☠ 16:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

And how is that? Pray tell. Trillfendi ( talk) 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep I usually don’t get technical on here (in fact, the majority of my contributions are simply adding onto existing articles and drafts), but I can’t seem to wrap my head around how this article doesn’t adequately establish notability. As stated via Trillfendi, WP:NMODEL has been discussed for quite some time now - multiple members finding it hard to come to a consensus on what exactly it may entail. The same guidelines apply to actors and entertainers, making the list even more generalized and hard to decipher in terms of articles on those in the modeling industry. The article isn’t a stub, it mentions accomplishments in the industry without being overly biased, and the references are mostly compiled of biographical content. Not sure what else is needed to make the article “notable” by other means (or what exactly the article is namedropping, per se.) VSHAUTE ( talk) 19:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The sources within the article (multiple Vogue articles, interview with The Times, etc.) are more than enough to establish WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Orville1974 ( talk) 19:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment Are folk examining the references. Interviews are not a reliable source. They are at the same level as blogs and are non-RS. Lets have an examination of the references.
• Ref Note
• 1. Contains a tiny bio. Breakout model.
• 2 & 3 Agency listing of the agency. Non-RS
• 4 Interview. Non-RS.
• 5 Email questionnaire/interview. Non-RS
• 6 Interview. Non-RS
• 7 Interview. Non-RS
• 8 Interview. Non-RS
• 9 Cant identify what it is about. Non-RS
• 10 Single name drop, identified as the show opener, for the show: Miu Miu
• 11 A small bio page in Vogue
• 12 An image for a shop.
• 13 A name, linking back to the agency page on reference 3
• 14 Image carousel Same as 13
• 15 Image carousel
• 16 Image carousel. Another link 13.
• 17 Identifies here as new Super on a tiny 3 line bio.
• 18 Listing page. Non-RS

So the first ref has bio information. Refs 2-9 are non-RS. 10 not worth talking about as they are Non-RS. 11 is notable. 12-16 are images. 17 is notable as a tiny bio. 18 is Non-RS. So essentially 2 small references which confirm the model exists but not enough to prove she is notable. Certainly one of them is Vogue, but I don't see it as sufficient, but not sure. scope_creep ^Talk 20:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Have the reading comprehension that information extracted from an interview is beyond questions they ask the subject.

The 9th source is a detailed account of the show she debuted in by VOGUE for crying out loud. To consider Vogue an unreliable source just because you don’t understand what you read is nonsensical and beyond ridiculous.

The first source is a compilation on 17 new models of note, of course each model will only get a few sentences of note; yet they still had the prudence to confirm 13 jobs she has done. The sources in the infobox such as agencies are only to cite information like height that goes in every model’s article. Duh. Inadmissible.

The fourth is the Vogue of her home country. Confirms 2 jobs...

The fifth is H&M, which as you should know has a fashion magazine. The source confirms she did an H&M campaign in addition to confirming 6 jobs.

The Sunday Times is now "unreliable" simply because they included her in a profile? Despite concise detail of her entire career trajectory?

WWD is now an unreliable source for... fashion?

Net-a-Porter, the largest luxury retailer in the world, also has 2 fashion magazines including Porter and authority to report on fashion; 5 jobs confirmed in lead. Keep up.

The Vogue source was to confirm the Miu Miu job. When Vogue writes about casting each notable model gets one sentence no matter to paint the complete picture of the show. Read the magazine once and you’ll figure out their editorial style. WP:NNC and WP:ARTN apply. Funny how on Kätlin Aas’s AfD that same one sentence set-up all of a sudden equated to a "smashing debut". The goal posts on this website never ceases to amaze.

Again, it doesn’t matter that Vogue Paris covered 10 models in the article: They not only classified her as one of the year’s most coveted new faces, they point out multiple Vogue covers and 59 shows. This is what we do with this information!

Vogue slideshows are to give visual evidence of some work; Models.com delineated who opened and closed the show. This article doesn’t depend on them.

If yet another Vogue is calling this woman a supermodel, my God she must be doing a helluva job. Still manages to confirm 2 covers and 2 campaigns. Trillfendi ( talk) 23:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

There is no Sunday Times reference in this article that I can see. scope_creep ^Talk 00:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

For me it was showing up as The Sunday Times or The Times and Sunday Times, but the article is still there either way. She was also on the cover of The Sunday Times Style magazine, so I assume the handles are one and the same online. Trillfendi ( talk) 01:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I have to disagree with the dismissal of interviews as RS. Interviews in publications such as The Times (and yes, Sunday Times shares same website; date is the only way to tell online) are not run by hacks. Even Playboy is regarded highly reliable in interviews on WP:RSP. These journalists write a well researched piece to introduce the subject of the interview. Secondly, when evaluating interviews, it is about the subject and the relative statement. If Birgit Kos said "the earth is flat" it is of course not a reliable source that the earth is flat, only that she may believe it. You have to consider the relative expertise. If Kos said "I broke my arm when I was 4 years old", however, we should take her at her word (unless the sources is such garbage the interview could be fictional). There are no other sources for early biographical information for BLP than the person themselves or their parents possible. These interviews are absolutely worthy of inclusion. If we (as Wikipedia) want to hedge our bet, all we need to do is attribute the claim to the very subject of the article.-- SVTCobra ( talk) 05:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment -In response to the question about whether any of us are paying attention to the sources, I agree that while we may consider the content of interviews less than reliable, the fact that multiple magazines have sought out this model for an interview shouldn't be overlooked. In your list of sources, you've dismissed multiple Vogue articles and one from WWD as unreliable because they are interviews without considering that Vogue and WWD felt her notable enough to interview her and include her in their publications. Orville1974 ( talk) 23:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

That's not really acceptable. You can't say one is not reliable then group them and say by grouping it is notable. There is plenty of consensus stating that interviews are non-rs, so there is no grouping. Also I think in this day and age due to the internet, there is an insatiable demand for content, content must be create and lots of it, but doesn't necessarily make it notable. When you look at the references, they are so basic that if they were in academic environment they rejected out of hand and that is the standard we are trying to achieve. Looking at them. The 5th references states she did 6 jobs. Is that notable. Maybe there is some consensus for NMODEL perhaps she has done so many jobs and appeared in so many places that makes her notable. I don't know. It doesn't feel as though there is any depth. scope_creep ^Talk 00:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I would like you to provide a link to the consensus that interviews are non-RS, especially when the interviewee is talking about themselves. I would really like to see that. Thanks, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 05:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I was thinking about. You could be right. I had a look at Vogue. The lassies seem to be choosen by the designers to appear in the runway show so if the designers become famous or notable, then being in that show makes the models in turn notable and then they get interviewed. It could be coverage is just that, like you say interviews, wee skits, wee bios and images. Perhaps that is all there is too it. scope_creep ^Talk 00:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep / Move back to draft - While there are current sourcing problems in the article and it needs improvement before it should be live. Birgit Kos meets WP:NMODEL in the following ways, she is frequently used by the most popular and high-end fashion magazines as a cover model. That is the first criteria as modelling itself is the production. She is not just used as a generic face or a clothes-hanger, these magazines put her name in their boldest font on the cover because they know it will help sell more copies, strongly suggesting she is popular and has a significant following or fan-base. Multiple highly reliable sources mention her as a supermodel and even as that is subjective, not all models need be supermodels to be notable and she's seemingly on the cusp of this level. She may not be innovative or contributed in a unique way to modelling, but who can? She is definitely prolific and has been for some time. -- SVTCobra ( talk) 19:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I am striking my vote to move back to Draft as I believe Trillfendi and I have improved the article sufficiently for it to stay live in its current state. Cheers, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 05:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The page was fine to begin with. Trillfendi ( talk) 17:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC/ WP:GNG with sources like The Sunday Times, Glamour, plus way more interviews [1] [2] [3] than an average-notable model, and the resume (the openings/closings, exclusives, covers) show WP:NMODEL is also met. – Leviv ich 07:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep. I have sympathy with the nom, however, the Sunday Times interview is WP:SIGCOV in a Tier 1 WP:RS. Added to proper interviews in mainline fashion magazines such as Glamour and Dutch Vogue, and she scrapes through; noting also that she is in the prime of her career, so her RS could improve further. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:49, 5 June 2019 (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.