Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniella van Graas

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I must admit that this is one of the more unproductive discussions I have seen in a long time. Many !votes are simply "meets GNG" (or "doesn't meet GNG") without actually giving reasons for that assessment. Sourcing still seems weak (apparently even Amazon links are being used). Nevertheless, there obviously is no consensus to delete at this time. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella van Graas[edit]

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

Daniella van Graas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The actress/model lacks significant coverage. I thought I could fix it but any article she is mentioned in is mere mention and it's about other actresses. Exhibit A. Maybe redirect to All My Children. Trillfendi (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect somewhere. Redirect somewhere. I looked too, found nothing that would show notability. Maybe just too soon. --valereee (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC) searching further --valereee (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC) moving back to redirect. With all the sources added by good-faith editors, I am just not seeing more than a single source that shows notability. --valereee (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Accepting third sig source found by User:Genericusername57 --valereee (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 04:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lubbad85: Appearing notable is not being notable. I delineated the problem. The article is not even one sentence and like I said, when you try to actually find sources to even attempt to rescue this disastrous "article" you get a one name mention at best. That is damn sure not enough for an article. This went sourceless for 10 years so it’s time for it to go. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a resume. If I wanted to “clean up” the page that’s what I would have done if it was possible, rather than nominate deletion. Common sense. Trillfendi (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a notable actor who has appeared in mainstream productions. I err on the side of keep if subject is notable, WP:NOTPAPER
When you look at the links Google provides it's "woman has worn a hat", "whosdatedwho.com", "FamousBirthdays", and "woman ate at an in Italian restaurant 9 years ago." Groundbreaking. Trillfendi (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not understand why the information about the brands she has modelled for were moved to the Talk page (in 2011) as "trivia". How is that trivial for a model???? I don't see evidence that the film and tv roles she has appeared in are significant roles in notable shows, but if she has had significant modelling jobs, she may meet WP:NMODEL. The nominator's "Exhibit A" above confirms that she was the face of Aveeno. Results on Google Books show: Mademoiselle in 1996 "COVER GIRL Daniella Van Graas is wearing Plumbago"; she was also in Marie Claire in 1996 ("A gauche Christoph Sillem pour Marie Claire bis, Automne/Hiver 95/96, mannequin : Daniella Van Graas ( Ford ) )"; she did represent Breil in 2002 (Sette, settimanale del Corriere della sera: "SPOTTINC 1 di LUCIA CASTAGNA □ «Don't touch my BREIL»: nel nuovo spot, lo dica con decisione Daniella Van Graas, modella olandese che richiama le Bond girls con quasi licenza di ucci- d e r e , in un'atmosfera tipica dei primi film di ...", and Panorama: "I Questo spot è un trampolino □ Debuttano nel nuovo e raffinato spot d'impatto del marchio Breil Daniella Van Graas e Tati Rosalino, statuarie bellezze di professione top model. Un compito di responsabilità: sostituiranno due testimonial dal ..."). There are only snippet views of the publications, so it's not possible without access to hard copies to see more. Given that her modelling career was in the 1990s, we probably need access to contemporary publications which have not been digitised. (Google is most definitely not the be all and end all of sources, especially if additional search terms are not added to reach useful results.) (I have found one newspaper article from 1997 which says "Ford Models celebrated its 50th anniversary .... Donald Trump cruised Ione Skye, Christie Brinkley, Elaine Irwin Mellencamp, Karen Elson and Daniella van Graas."!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trillfendi I added some into, a reference and her many magazine covers - seems WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 15:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 15:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
"Woman wore a hat" in an article “People snap their neck, in a good way, when they see me in these huge hats,” says Daniella Van Graas, a model and actress who lives in New York. “They really are fashion statements.” and FashionModelDirectory... which is not a reliable source. This is the shit I'm talking about. Trillfendi (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trillfendi Too funny...I used the source to show where she is living not to highlight her hat. Also she has been on the cover of major magazines - and I added her 2014 movie. She is notable IMO. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is where she lives relevant or of any importance. WP:MILL. Trillfendi (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to fill out her bio - important for the bio. Maybe you can help us to improve the article? Lubbad85 (☎) 17:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already said if I did what I thought could be done I would have done it. But I can't–because there is nothing to save this. Therefore I nominated for deletion. Nothing can fix this article to even the most basic of standards. There is an insidious proliferation of articles on this website, mainly pertaining to models and actors , of barely 3 sentences and random trivia with no verification or reliable sources and people thinking "they exist! they did one job!" is good enough. It's madness. And while I'm at it, none of the "magazine covers" she's done in this century are even notable. A list of "magazine covers" and a filmography of roles of bit parts is a resume. Trillfendi (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen, NMODEL doesn't seem to give us any detail on what represents a 'signficant role' for a model -- would 7 fashion covers plus being Aveeno's face for a period get to that level? I think the exhibit A was pointing out that the source gave just a bare mention in an article that was about Aniston, but I'm open to the idea that the covers plus being the face of a major skincare brand would do it. I wish NMODEL gave us more detail. --valereee (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to explain letter by letter that this is a nomination for deletion–NOT a request for cleanup? What don't y'all get? Trillfendi (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:7&6=thirteen Honest question: develop the article with what? I may be a bear of little brain, but I'm really not seeing anything remotely reliable that commits more than a single sentence to the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenMeansGo (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Entertainers are known by their work. A model is notable for being on the cover of major magazines as getting mention for her high paid modeling jobs for big companies. Dream Focus 00:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More unverified vagueness. Not very useful. If she was on the cover of a Vogue, then it’d be a completely different story. Trillfendi (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of vagueness, could you please point to the notability guideline that specifically requires a Vogue cover? Bakazaka (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said notability specifically required a Vogue cover (reading comprehension, try it.) The fact is, Vogue is the most prestigious fashion magazine in the world so if she had a Vogue cover a model notability wouldn’t even be a question.
Are you saying that a Vogue cover always counts as a notable "other production" under WP:ENTERTAINER? The reason I'm asking for clarification is that, even though you may not realize it, you're not actually making a guideline-based case for deletion based on the appropriate guideline. The editors in this thread are acting in good faith to show that the subject meets WP:ENT. Nothing requires you to respond directly to their points, of course, but when someone raises a point about one issue and you talk about something else entirely, or worse, insult and belittle their efforts, it makes the work of building the encyclopedia more difficult. Bakazaka (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You’re clearly looking at the American circulation numbers when she was on the UK cover 20 years ago. A magazine that is a quarter of the size. Doesn’t add up. Trillfendi (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being on Marie Claire Netherlands doesn’t change the fact there are still no reliable sources to verify any career statements. Oh but we’re supposed to make “exceptions” for “FashionModelDirectory” and “idolcelebs” all of a sudden. Trillfendi (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are at least a few WP:RS. i'LL add them to the article. WP:Before says you should have added them before starting the WP:AFD. Cheeers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]], to be fair to Trillfendi, I looked, too, and wasn't able to find anything. Sometimes searching can be tricky, and the fact one person doesn't find anything and another person does isn't necessarily evidence the first person didn't do a WP:Before --valereee (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen nope, just me being stupid again --valereee (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I’m saying for the third goddamn time, I tried to do a WP:BEFORE before proposing deletion and all I could find was the Us Weekly article about Jennifer Aniston and the “woman wears hat” article. Read. (Though I’m sure the “reliable” sources you bring forth still won’t be satisfactory for this article.) Trillfendi (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sympathetic that you need to verbalize your frustration in such a colorful manner. It doesn't help the discussion, but ... I guess it's your privilege. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=13 (is that an unpingable username?), Trillfendi says she did do a Before, she's said so multiple times, and I am backing her up. You made an accusation that she didn't; she's understandably annoyed. Being condescending doesn't help the discussion either. --valereee (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can reach me using [[User:7&6=thirteen]] No condescension was intended. Umbrage perhaps, but not condescension I will add the sources I found, which go beyond what was mentioned. But niffnawing on this page isn't helping. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:7&6=thirteen, that YouTube biography is 22 seconds long and sourced to Wikipedia. --valereee (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye Jack, there's literally no coverage. How does that satisfy GNG? --valereee (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
valereee You continue to say "no coverage". This is wrong. I said I will fill the article out, and that is in progress. But facts don't matter, either. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen of course facts matter! Please assume good faith, here, I'm doing my best to work with you. I struck my 'redirect' vote as a direct result of what looked like well-intentioned editors trying to add to the article. But that YouTube video is not a reliable source -- it's sourced to WP. And IMDb is crowdsourced. --valereee (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not even close to the correct usage of “literally” as there literally is some coverage even if you don’t think it satisfies GNG. The IMDb profile for this person is quite extensive (Daniella van Graas at IMDb) and a page has existed for the subject on Dutch wikipedia since January 2012 (nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniella_van_Graas). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye Jack, I consider IMDb and Fashion Model Directory to be zero coverage, but okay: literally no coverage that would serve to prove notability for purposes of GNG. What are you seeing that satisfies GNG? --valereee (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And since when is the existence of an IMDb page, a source that we all know is unacceptable and unreliable, a valid instance of "coverage"? Then what? A Template:BLP IMDb-only refimprove needs to be slapped on an article that will never be improved? When the Dutch language article only references two unreliable sources, IMDb and FMD? Oh wait, that’s because there simply are no reliable sources for her. Trillfendi (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: valereee Trillfendi It seems to me the combination of her modeling, commercials, television, movies collectively prove WP:GNG. The fact that there are few sources/references does not diminish her contributions and her GNG/WP:ENT. I would expect any entertainer who has lived in the public eye (Prominently displayed in mainstream media) for this long to have a Wiki. With the exception of thin sourcing I cannot find a reason to say she is not notable. The woman got married and had three children which helps to explain her absence from the public eye as of late. Much of her work was done prior to this world wide web. I assume WP:AGF from everyone here. Lubbad85 (☎) 18:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Appearance does not equal general notability without reliable citations for verification. That’s not how any of this works. This is an encyclopedia—the top pillar of Wikipedia. Trillfendi (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lubbad85, the thin sourcing is the point, I'm afraid. I actually agree that we might need to consider whether our notability guidelines for models ought to include things like magazine covers -- I just got done arguing that major fashion covers may provide coverage as significant as an article inside that same magazine over at WP:RSN; that the fact this kind of coverage is not text does not make it not-significant. But that's not really helpful for building an article. We can't do a gallery of her covers. Which leaves us with an article that could easily be a very small section of an article called "Aveeno's faces" or whatever. --valereee (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added some sources and text. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment User:7&6=thirteen Good on you! And valereee you are correct. A notable pretty face with thin sourcing poses a problem for the Wiki. It does look an article at this point - much better than when the afd was placed. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Trillfendi I do think we have more than appearance of GNG. I hope you take a fresh look at the article. The article you nominated has been improved to the point, where maybe you could consider withdrawing the nomination Lubbad85 (☎) 19:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And exactly as I predicted none of the sources are remotely satisfactory. The sources about Jennifer Aniston simply says Jennifer is more famous. This link to Amazon.com for an unavailable 23 year old magazine is an atrocity and an abject embarrassment that anyone would even think to include. The Japanese “source” simply says Doutzen Kroes and “Daniel” van Graas are tall people. And abc-daytime.fandom.com—are you fucking serious?! Did you even look? THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. It only emboldened my decision to nominate for deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that someone, in full dramatic irony, really put a fandom wikia blog that anybody can edit as a “reference” proves my point to the T. (And oh would you look at that, their reference is IMDb. Full circle.) Trillfendi (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:7&6=thirteen I'm not sure any of those rise to the level of proving notability, even added together. The Dutch television show in which she was one of three 'most beautiful girls in the class' featured in that episode would be the only one that seems to support notability. I would accept that as one, but I'd want to see at least a couple more, and I'm just not seeing them. There are articles about Aniston, affiliated sources, crowdsourced, and a lot of bare mentions. Which three sources would you argue are the BEST -- the most significant coverage in the most reliable sources? --valereee (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect you to be persuaded or repent. "And yet it moves." Hard to get any sincerity from a true believer asked to recant. I only expect you will follow WP:Consensus, as we move over the line to Keep. In fact, how you or I feel is irrelevant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What User:7&6=thirteen said. #truth. valereee I like that yoy have kept an open mind in the process. Trillfendi I am sorry to read that you are married to the position even when faced with new information Lubbad85 (☎) 20:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My friends, if I saw notability, I would happily accept it. I'm just having a hard time seeing it. I'll repeat: Which three sources do you see as proving notability? I'm accepting the Dutch TV show; can you point me at the two others that you feel prove notability? --valereee (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
valereee You will have to pick from what you see. Thin sourcing but none the less GNG so you will need to decide. May the force be with you! Lubbad85 (☎) 20:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lubbad85, that's the problem. What I see is nothing; I was hoping you or 7&6 could point out where I was missing something. --valereee (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t worry, it has been dealt with. Inclusion of such drivel was a disgrace to Wikipedia and was removed at once. Trillfendi (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trillfendi please stop the malicious editing on the article. IMO it is very poor form to revert especially during an afd that that you started. We are well aware of your position, but this type of editing is harmful to this process. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This has now become a WP:Edit war, which should be resolved on the article talk page. Sorry you feel the need to act out. It won't change the outcome here. Trillfendi you are upagainst WP:3RR. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia states clear as day in WP:INTREF: One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that a reliable source must be able to support the material. Therefore you putting unquestionably unreliable sources like “idolcelebs”, “fandom.com” and an invalid Amazon sale link is doing the complete opposite and contentious material must be removed. If you find an actually reliable source for your claims then do so. Trillfendi (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi You have made your position clear. You want the article deleted. But at this point you are for sure WP:TENDENTIOUS. The afd is in place and that does not change. It is poor form for you to shout down those wikipedians working to improve the article and to then step on the work others are doing by thrice reverting. I suggest you take a step back and allow the afd to play out. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not an improvement of the article!!! It was the antithesis of that, no matter what position I have on the article’s deletion I’m not going to sit by and watch disastrous sources that don’t in any way adhere to Wikipedia policy be added to it under the guise of “sources”. What don’t you get? Your thinking of adding any source is an improvement to it is unmitigated fallacy. If you really sit there and think in-any-other-case unaccepted, unreliable things like fan blogs add value then, well, that’s completely illogical. Trillfendi (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi, you need to stop reverting, and I think you need to step away for a bit. Your position is clear, and while I agree with you, an edit war is not the solution. --valereee (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And as you can see I haven’t touched the article since. If you think these abhorrent “souces” are warranted, then so help you God. Trillfendi (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ANI
Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow 'nuf said. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All my principles on this are summarized in the lead of Wikipedia’s content guideline and I will devoutly abide. Be Best. Trillfendi (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've still yet to see a reliable secondary source that commits more than a sentence to the subject of the article, and apparently the attempts to "improve" the article include wikias and amazon.com. Much of the current article can and should be removed as a BLP violation. What's left isn't an encyclopedia article. GMGtalk 22:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I moved my !vote back to redirect. No one has been able to point out which sources prove notability; the recently added sources just feel like a refbomb of blogs, crowdsourced, affiliated, bare mentions, and bad sources. I am completely puzzled as to why this AfD has gone so wrong. I can see this is likely to survive, guess I'll just have to take it off my watchlist lol. --valereee (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Things do tend to go awry on this website when policy is perceived as a personal agenda or vendetta. Thankfully, people like GreenMeansGo recognize what I have been saying the whole time without making it about feelings. The recent “sources” are an abomination, removal of them is mandatory, and this article is unsalvageable. Trillfendi (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen, I actually added the only citation that provides significant coverage in a reliable source, so you should probably include me in your thanks instead of calling me names. :D So you're saying Genericusername57, GreenMeansGo, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Nikkimaria, Davemck, Gidonb all feel this subject qualifies as notable; that does make me want to take a fresh look at the sources. I've gone through every one of them. As of right now, 1 & 2: lists of beautiful Dutch women 3. IMDb mirror site? 4. bare mention 5.Significant coverage (that's the one I added) 6. bare mention 7. affiliated 8. cover description 9. idolcelebs.com 10. fashionmodeldirectory.com 11. Doesn't seem to mention her? 12 - 18 stories about Jennifer Aniston 19. magazine cover 20-28 bare mentions in cast lists 29. Is the same as #5. As I have said before, I am open minded to the idea that sheer numbers of mentions is good enough to prove GNG. I think it represents a change to policy, though. But maybe that's how we should consider models? --valereee (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your characterization of "the only source." But it is a useful one.
But I added you in the note and will add you as a contributor in the WP:DYK, which is not a Zero sum game. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hahahahaha fair enough :D --valereee (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions on a hook would be appreciated. Of course, this has to survive deletion, but Tempus fugit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the only thing I've done on the article is remove sources that were of such exceptionally poor quality I was willing to claim a 3RR exception under BLP. There are still a number of sources I would have already removed if there were not an AfD open to give the appearance I was trying to unduly affect the outcome, and if the article is kept, I fully intend to remove them once the discussion is concluded. This can barely be called a source at all. I see no reason to think this is reliable for a BLP. This is scarcely a source and neither is this. For the remainder, as far as I can tell, the TVvisie citation (of whatever reliability it might claim) is the only source that is actually about the subject of the article. Much of the rest are passing mention (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4]), most of which don't commit even a single full sentence to the subject.
The fact that nearly all the source are talking about subjects other than van Graas is reflected in the current article: eleven words describing what Aveeno is, two to three sentences that are more about Jennifer Aniston than about van Graas, two sentences that are nothing but name dropping based on passing mentions in cast listings.
Whether the article is kept or deleted, when we remove the unreliable sources and fluff, there isn't very much left. GMGtalk 12:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:GreenMeansGo I appreciate you not deleting sources you have a low opinion of at this time. The BLP criteria as it relates to the 3RR is to prevent negative content and libelous material...this is not that. WP:AGF User:7&6=thirteen Thank you for your efforts! Lubbad85 (☎) 13:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that you patently see that when we remove the unreliable sources and fluff, there isn’t very much left, least of all that which can substantiate an encyclopedic article, I feel vindication. Trillfendi (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi You should take notice that your stated opinion does not have WP:CONSENSUS - repeating the same mantra over and over is unhelpful and does not change minds here. Some editors here are being constructive. Lubbad85 (☎) 14:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I simply said I agree with everything GreenMeansGo expressed, it doesn’t have anything to do with what anyone else says nor your opinion on consensus, and I didn’t ask for nor need your approval. Trillfendi (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll accept AGF the article User:Genericusername57 has found behind a paywall as a second source with significant coverage. It seems to be titled something like "Sparkling next to Bruce Willis" so it's likely about van Glaas rather than Willis. --valereee (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A "legal and professional solutions" website now constitutes "significant coverage" for film? Trillfendi (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi, Lexis/Nexis is a legal document and news database. --valereee (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi, if you genuinely don’t know what LexisNexis is perhaps you need some more experience before participating in AFD discussions, this is just sad. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the LexisNexis is, Horse. But continue taking everything out of context. Trillfendi (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moving to keep, accepting genericusername's third sig cov source AGF. Great work, generic! --valereee (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To supplement your good faith, I can confirm that the 650+ word 2007 Noordhollands Dagblad article is entirely about the subject, with several quotes from her interspersed with career achievements and highlights. The 200 word 2014 Noordhollands Dagblad source is a book review of a book in which famous and not-famous people say what they think beauty is, and the review simply mentions the subject in passing as a top model and one of the people in the book (here is the book website: [5]). Bakazaka (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, the book ref definitely isn't sigcov, but I think the Metro NL one (also available through Lexis) is. Cheers, gnu57 17:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added a Noordhollands Dagblad reference that isn't behind a paywall. On and beyond, there are three detailed (and different) listings in the Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant for the televsion special that I haven't added. I did add a newspaper article in which the husband reacts to an event. I also added, expanded, deleted and moved texts as needed. gidonb (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I don't subscribe to the theory that the plural of "passing mention" is "significant coverage", we have now reached the point where WP:GNG is passed, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Bakazaka (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been provided a copy of the main article from Metro NL. I ran it through Google translate, and have put some quotes into our article. FWIW, it is about her. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, an opinion unemcumbered by actually reading the article and the cited sources. Just saw you here. Welcome aboard. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per reliable sourcing. Per WP:NMODEL, per WP:GNG, per WP:ANYBIO.BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent work sourcing references and adding information. Now definitely meets WP:ANYBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This is very thinly sourced for what it is, which concerns me. I've looked at all of the references I have access to. It's definitely source-bombed. The Noordhollands Dagblad article is probably fine as it at least has the appearance of being about her, but for someone as notable as this article makes her out to be, there's a lack of reliable sources and a whole lot of WP:SYNTH through one-sentence mentions - there's nothing here from a sourcing point of view that jumps out and screams clear WP:GNG pass. SportingFlyer T·C 02:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the person who has posted all of this appears to be a fan of Van Graas:), scrolling down to the April 3, 2016 post there is a scan of some pages out of TopModel Russia that may discuss her, now if only it was larger it might have something useable. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bellazon is a random forum for people to gossip about models. The question really is, since when is that permissible? For anyone to have even included it in the article at all, Lord knows what they tried to extract from it, is grievous. Had it come from a reliable source it’d be a different story. Trillfendi (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't included. You are hypothetical, Tilting at windmills. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was included, by you no less, until someone had the good sense to remove it. Don’t try to backtrack now. Trillfendi (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi You can take pride in the fact that your afd caused others to do this much research. It is astonishing that people have worked so hard on this article - and I wish you would acknowledge the efforts. This is not a loss for you, this is a win for Wikipedia - and all because of the Afd you placed. So bravo! Please take pride in the fact that your afd improved this article. If it gets deleted or kept is out of our hands now. Lubbad85 (☎) 23:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing you don’t realize is: this isn’t a competition. No one “wins” or “loses”. We do the process until it ends and then we move on. I would “take pride” if people brought forth exemplary sources such as the New York Times, Harper’s Bazaar, Vogue, Elle, etc. that give valuable information about a model’s career that otherwise I may have missed if they existed. Not scrounging through the bowels of the Internet to find a comment by “ewell666” then falsely attributing it to a modeling agency, or a mistranslation in a random Japanese blog about how Dutch people are tall and claiming with no evidence that’s how “Daniel” van Graas got into the modeling world (Dutch people being way taller than average is simply an evolutionary trait, it has no bearing on how she got discovered which of course wasn’t mentioned), or the variation of IMDb “cinafilm”, or a bunch of sources about Jennifer Aniston and her “eight figure” salary from a drug store lotion brand, or an unavailable amazon.com product (who does that? Seriously.), resorting to Lexis-Nexis for basic information, her husband’s job, or why “curiously TV Guide fails note her appearance”, yet calling that an “improvement” (on top of the fact that an top to bottom copy edit is desperately needed); then growling at me for pointing out why it’s so terribly unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. No, shan’t. Trillfendi (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick points here. One, Lexis-Nexis is a huge information company that, among other services, provides access to newspaper and magazine archives, so "resorting to Lexis-Nexis" is not a problem, any more than resorting to JSTOR or resorting to Proquest or resorting to Newspapers.com would be if you were actually trying to find sources. Thinking it's a problem reflects a basic misunderstanding of what Lexis-Nexis is. Two, that's the second time you've claimed that the Japanese blog source says "Daniel". It doesn't. However, if you're trying to read the story using Google Translate, then the Google translated text says "Daniel". But that's an issue with how you're looking at the source, not the source itself. The common theme here is that some of your objections are based on issues related to your understanding of the situation. You might benefit from reflecting on that point. Bakazaka (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the website is, it’s just my opinion that it’d be much better for information should come from the original source’s archive, at least that would be preferable rather. Other than that, I stand by what I wrote. Two Dutch models are tall is akin to two Scottish women are ginger. Trillfendi (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow!, i didn't know my little comment would generate so much text:), there is no problem with bringing up a fan's scan of a magazine article (note: i did't say that the fanpage is ok as a reference), a wikieditor who knows russian and has access to russian fashion magazines can now check out the article and see if it has anything useable/relevant/significant, this would usually be brought up on an article's talkpage but as there is an afd..... Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you click on each page of the scan posted on the forum, it will expand so you can read the text. I don't speak russian, but it looks to me like a biographical overview followed by a fluff interview. Cheers, gnu57 06:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was just saying that forum was previously (indefensibly) added as a source and it was removed. Trillfendi (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, no probs:) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 3 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniella_van_Graas&oldid=895350000"