Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oksana Gedroit Jager

Oksana Gedroit Jager

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Oksana Gedroit Jager (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)

This model is not notable at all. There’s nothing to show for her career—and no reliable sources at all (“Fashion Encyclopedia” is literally one big copyright violation). There’s really only a regional thing from 15min but that’s not enough for an article to stand on. An article cannot rely on one source. I put a notability tag but the author removed it... (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

First of all, how is she not notable? She is a working model, constantly shooting for different ads and magazines and doing runway shows. She is still active and has more followers than some of the models you Trillfendi have written articles for! If you were even remotely interested in the fashion industry you would know that. I'm sure her followers would be interested to read about her on wikipedia. And stating that there's only one source, when there's five different sources, is clearly a lie. But I guess IMG Models is not reliable, right? Bianca1703 (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bianca1703: Get this... someone’s number of “followers” on social media is irrelevant to a Wikipedia article. Being a working model doesn’t equal being a notable model if there’s no way to independently verify said work. And if you really want to make this about IMG, I’m looking at the board right now and counted at least 101 models on the Main Board who are not notable enough right now by general notability standards to have a Wikipedia page. Being signed to IMG Models is not automatic notability. That’s not how this works. And with regard to these “sources”, it’s absolute RIDICULOUS to think “hautespotter”, “fashionencyclopedia”, and “AESTHETICCULT” are anywhere near the realm of reliable sources on this website. And IMG is a primary source so it doesn’t even count. Now since you’re trying to make this me and my interests—why would I have created 65 fashion model articles so far, help create 10, and have 74 model articles currently in the draft space if I wasn’t “even remotely interested in the fashion industry.” Blatantly, by now, I know what I’m doing on this subject. People are welcome to disagree with me on any AfD, yet I know enough to have created multiple model articles from scratch in just one day. This is not WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Trillfendi (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: It's 2019, of course followers matter. They are people who will actively search for more information on someone and would want to read an article on wikipedia. So you're trying to say that journalists who independently did their research and interviews and wrote articles aren't credible? They are not good enough for wikipedia, right? Get off your high horse! It's getting ridiculous.

To many people, like me, Oksana is better known than many of the models you created articles on. Just accept that different people are interested in reading articles about different models. Just because YOU are not interested in her and YOU didn't write the article, doesn't mean that no one else is. I don't go around marking your articles for deletion, because I know that someone out there might be interested in one of them. But also, I have better things to do with my time.

@Bianca1703: First of all, sign your comments. Secondly, read: followers don’t matter—to a Wikipedia page. Thirdly, “hautespotter”, “fashionencyclopedia”, and “AESTHETICCULT” don’t use “journalists”, get real. Articles require reliable sources, not blogs. Read the policy. It doesn’t matter how well known the subject is to you, it matters what can be verified. I’ve created pages for Model of the Year winners and unknowns; the difference is they have magazines like Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar, and Elle as sources. This is not about my opinion of the subject because frankly I couldn’t care less. This is about the fact that the subject doesn’t meet Wikiepdia’s notability standards. Had you actually sent this through the AfC process, a reviewer would have declined it. I didn’t propose deletion out of spite, so stop being so sensitive and look at this for what it is. If you actually had a reason to propose deletion on one of my articles then nothing would stop that from going forth. None of this is personal. Trillfendi (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comments: Civility is a policy as well as No personal attacks, and the way we follow that is by assuming good faith. These are part of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. The first source I looked at, aestheticult.net, stated "Instagram is probably many models’ LinkedIn". While determining notability, coverage by reliable independent sources needs to be considered. WP:NMODEL gives added criterion for notability to be considered on all related articles and I don't yet see "industry related" sources only as reaching the bar. Otr500 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to IMG (company)#IMG Models. Inadequate sourcing, but still a model for a notable company. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting to a section of an article that has 3 sentences? Trillfendi (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:ATD. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - I think this subject definitely passes WP:NMODEL. The problem is that there are few English sources, however I have found several in Lithuanian which we should take a look at before deletion:

https://www.15min.lt/vardai/naujiena/lietuva/is-salcininku-kiles-modelis-oksana-gedroit-jager-savo-busima-vyra-sutiko-tokijuje-1050-440622 https://zmones.lrytas.lt/tv-antena/2014/10/06/news/niujorke-isikurusi-lietuve-kalbedama-su-mama-griebiasi-zodyno-4370390/

Skirts⁸⁹ 09:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

What about, you know, actual fashion sources like Vogue. Oh wait, none are out there. Trillfendi (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment She has often appeared in Vogue Japan (eg [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc) - searching on "Oksana Jager" helped to find those. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

4 links of street style photos... how useful. Trillfendi (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Lack of independent, substantive sources to establish notability. "She" didn't appear in Vogue Japan, the clothes she wore to advertise did, with her name mentioned as part of a common job. Reywas92^Talk 06:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:NMODEL #1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable ... other productions". I have added sources verifying that she has modelled for many notable brands. (It helps to search on all variations of her name - Oksana Gedroit Jager, Oksana Gedroit and Oksana Jager.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Once again, a slideshow of 3 images and a smattering of street style photos (i.e. ≠off duty) does not do anything to indicate notability. Walking your dog while wearing Alexander Wang, etc. is not modeling for them, that’s off-duty. That’s not how any of this works. Trillfendi (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Certainly if I walked a dog while wearing Alexander Wang, I would not be modelling for them. But when a professional model wears it, is photographed by a professional fashion photographer, and the photos are published in a leading fashion magazine, I would certainly call it modelling. I also disagree with the editor above, who said that she didn't appear in Vogue Japan, the clothes did. Funny how the clothes always appear on professional models, not just anybody (or nobody, just the clothes) - and that the models appear again and again .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That’s. Not. Modeling. It’s called being off duty. Meaning they’re off the clock. Not working. Not getting paid to wear clothes. Wearing their own clothes on their personal time. Trillfendi (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete a model with WP:MILL mentions, but no WP:SIGCOV, not even the sort of special gigs - like becoming the face of a major brand - that make a model notable. Fails WP:NMODEL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: She was/is actually the face of lamer, and she was chosen because she has small scars on her face which make her stand out. Bianca1703 (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)