Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Binaris

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) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Binaris

[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)

Subject of article lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. References provided shows appearing on different lists but she is never discussed with in-depth. She appears to also to be rich. But wealth doesn’t translate to notability. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Speedy keep: This is ridiculous beyond plausability. Can you not read or can you not comprehend? I’m convinced you people stalk the new page log just to find women to delete for no valid reason. Does the Sunday Times of South Africa not go “in-depth” about her career origins and achievements at over 500 words? Is Glamour magazine all of a sudden not a major fashion publication? That which has not only asserted facts about her life but career achievements? There are also sources out there in such as Cosmopolian. Is Independent Online now not a reliable source of South African affairs that they could even report on career and financial stati of their residents? If this is “failure” of general notability, or at the very least NMODEL (a subject you clearly have no understanding of whatsoever), then you really need to reevaluate. Trillfendi (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi To imply that your co-editors who are hard working are sexist or “cannot read and comprehend” is a stone throw away from constituting a personal attack if not already one. But in the end learn to be WP:CIVIL to your co-editors. Furthermore i’m a female editor by the way but I’d never allow emotions overrule WP:COMMONSENSE i always endeavor to leave my emotions in the “emotions jar” before editing on here. Cheers dear colleague.Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows it’s common knowledge that Wikipedia has a bias against women. I leave civility at the door of righteous indignation. You can’t sit here and say you actually read the sources, all of which given came to one consensus that her career has been doing very well so far internationally and locally, and say that there isn’t a reading comprehension issue here. Otherwise you would have left this perfectly fine article alone instead of wasting time. Period. Trillfendi (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from such chracter assasinations and baseless accusations against fellow editors. The fact that some of us do not want Wikipedia to be more overwhelmed with articles on non-notable individuals should not be used to engage in acts of hate speech as you are doing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I said what I said. No other reason besides unconscious bias that this article, which has no issue of independent reliable sourcing or notability, would be proposed for faulty deletion just because they don't like it. Now if they couldn't see or understand said sources then this isn't the place for it either. Trillfendi (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:MODEL and there is significant coverage in reliable sources. This article was nominated for deletion after it was live for just over an hour. It seems that a thorough WP:BEFORE may not have been done before the nom. Netherzone (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When we are turning to primary sources like complete listings of graduates to esdtablish an article we are building the wrong way. Wikipedia is not the place to present and make people notable, it is meant to only cover those with significant 3rd party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: MULTIPLE reliable sources in the article already established that she graduated from the University of Cape Town before her career. That one sentence only used the public document listing of graduates to specify in itself what class she graduated in! Trillfendi (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. This person is not notable enough yet. Give it time. - Darwinek (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm let’s see...

Cosmopolitan: We’re looking at you, Alex Binaris. Having walked the runway for many renowned fashion houses including Chanel, Elie Saab and Louis Vuitton, not to mention being featured in the pages of British Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar, Binaris is a bona-fide supermodel who we can’t get enough of.

Sunday Times: Her leap into the big league is impressive for someone her age, 21.... Locally, Binaris has worked on several editorial shoots including Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan and Glamour, and has graced the cover of Wanted and Pudeur magazines. Internationally she has shot a Louis Vuitton fashion spread for Elle Japan, worked with French photographer Vincent Fournier for a shoot published in Harper's Bazaar US and featured in Teen Vogue.

Glamour: Alexandra Binaris, hotly tipped to become one of the most notable names in fashion – and quite rightly so. Within a day of signing with Boss Models, Alex was introduced to the head scout of Elite Paris, who immediately snapped her up for their prestigious Europe modelling group. Despite only having modelled for a short time, Alex has walked the runways for some of the finest fashion houses in the world, from Louis Vuitton and Chanel to Jean Paul Gaultier. And as if that wasn’t enough, she’s also been featured in top style magazines like GLAMOUR magazine.

Now that’s not notable for a model? And the sources are entirely about her, hence significant coverage? Pray tell. What “time” is needed for something she has already expressly done? This is the disarming lack of understanding I’m talking about. Beyond belief. Trillfendi (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that she meets WP:NMODEL, with "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The Sunday Times article is significant coverage; Wanted and Glamour South Africa both have two informative paras. I have added a bit of information from the sources to the article. It sounds like the article creator has more sources, as Cosmopolitan, mentioned above, is not yet included. As it was nominated for deletion just one hour after being created, they may not have had time yet. Per WP:ATD, it could have been tagged for notability before being brought to AfD, thus allowing the creator, and other editors, more time to develop it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft to allow time for improvement by those editors who believe that the article can be improved, so as to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 19:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I’ll admit I don’t fully understand the rationale being put forward for deletion here. This person is clearly notable, with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. She passed the general notability guideline as well as the standards specifically for models. Could the article be better? Sure, but AFD isn’t meant to be used to highlight criticism of prose. The suggestion to move this to draft is well meaning but IMHO unnecessary in this case — the article sufficiently demonstrated the subject’s notability as written and can be improved from in article space. Michepman (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MODEL because of significant media coverage Cheeburger (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trillfendi. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2020 (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.