Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Marker (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 14:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Marker

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the statements made in the article don't cite a source. Only five sources are cited, and they all seem to be connected to her, meaning there may be no secondary sources and the article may rely exclusively on primary sources. Two of the sources cited are models.com, which seems to be sort of like Linkedin for models. One of the sources cited doesn't seem to mention her at all. Another source is just a list and barely mentions her. Also, the article is very biased and is is clearly promoting her. Baronet13 (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has anything changed since the discussion three years ago where there was a clear consensus to keep? There's lots of sigcov, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. pburka (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a poorly sourced puff piece that fails to prove notability. If nothing has changed in three years, that's the problem. And if it still doesn't change it will almost certainly be nominated for deletion again.Baronet13 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is not cleanup and the justification to delete should be made based on sources found some doing WP:BEFORE searches, not current sourcing and I see no indication that this work was done prior to nomination. CT55555(talk) 23:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through five pages of a Google search and found few potentially usable sources, and the sources I did find were lacking in substantive information. If the article can be cleaned up, then one must wonder why it hasn't been done.Baronet13 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage, such as that listed by Pburka, supports that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three years I said to keep the article, pointing out that https://www.vogue.com/article/nina-marker-versace-model-on-fashion-autism-awareness is significant coverage, and linking to a popsugar article which isn't loading up right now. More coverage of her has been found since then. Dream Focus 06:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added some sources, deleted unsourced problem paragraphs with editorializing written in machine-translated English, updated information including a sentence about the t-shirt pic on Instagram during Milan Fashion Week 2017. Need to fix a bit more before more well-meaning fans start adding more "stuff" again. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2022 (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.