Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glamourina

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 No Consensus to delete. There is no consensus below as to whether the sources in the article are sufficient to support notability under the GNG or not. If better sources do not appear in the near future a subsequent nomination at AfD may be reasonable. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glamourina

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

As noted at Wikipedia_talk:POLAND#Prod_proposal:_Glamourina, this article has serious issues with notability (a blogger), and reliability of sources is poor (blogs, etc. - see WP:BOMBARDMENT. As at least one editor seems to disagree with the proposed prod, I think we need a wider community discussion on whether this person is notable or not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know, I can't read Polish. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Miasto kobiet seems to be a newspaper of record. — Racconish^Tk 13:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd feel more confient in that after AfDing that article on pl wiki, which I may do. A specialized regional fashion magazine with a claim of 15,000 publication volume, using only one self-ref... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I nominated the magazine for AfD at pl wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2011:11:21:Miasto kobiet (magazyn)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not certain if the magazine is non-notable in reality, I am sure its current form on pl-wiki does not satisfy the credibility&notability criteria, so it should not be used as an argument for keeping this article. Pundit|utter 03:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the discussion here is not about the magazine (which does not have its en wiki entry), but about a biography which uses the said magazine as one of its sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, the pl-wiki article on the magazine cannot be used as an argument to keep the article about the person. If it was unclear, sorry ;) Pundit|utter 20:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article about a completely non-notable person. - Darwinek (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; I assume that Piotrus can read Polish. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe there is enough here to satisfy GNG, and the article appears to be neutral and appropriate. Chzz ► 23:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you define "enough"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe fashion blogging in Poland is more notable/encyclopedic than Glamourina's individual contribution. Could an editor develop such aspect and redirect the current article?— Racconish^Tk 07:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It clearly meets the notability requirements (specifically, WP:BIO) because it demonstrates "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 22:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A concern is that the sources are not reliable (blogs, self-published, and such). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second: it clearly DOES NOT meet the GNG, because it DOES NOT demonstrate "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" Pundit|utter 00:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll elaborate and note that in my experience, a common counter to our objection is for the defenders to present a discussion of the sources and tell us why they are reliable. This has not happened, we still know very little about the sources other than they look rather unreliable based on the (little) info present in the article (mostly unknown websites linked). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check the references as they are now? They changed quite a bit since the day you first PRODded it, on November 10, and I believe the article now meets WP:GNG--★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 06:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked. Yes, they are nicely formatted, but can you tell me how any of them are reliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my grasp of Polish is extremely limited but ... yes, I'd say there's enough there. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - the sources look good to me, might need a bit more of clean up. person is notable in the polish fashion industry. Americanpatriot1|

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.