Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braeden Wright

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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Braeden Wright

[edit]

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

Braeden Wright (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)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are quotes, brief mentions, interviews, or lack mention of the article subject. reddogsix (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There are enough articles dedicated to the subject to overcome GNG but just barely and this article needs some major pruning. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:NMODEL. -- LACaliNYC✉ 21:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Clearly PASSES the WP:GNG, and especially the WP:NMODEL. This person has a fully dedicated in-depth interview and profile in Forbes Magazine-- an independent and secondary source with a circulation of almost 1 MILLION, and 71.1 MILLION unique visitors, and also is interviewed and profiled in OUT Magazine, with a magazine circulation of 203,000. This is no small feat of notability in its own right, besides considering the subject very obviously passing the WP:NMODEL criteria in addition. The model is featured on Models.com, the most important and critical source in the fashion industry in ranking the notability of models that there is. To even have a dedicated profile on that site (which is an independent and secondary news source-- models do not control or have any sway on getting a ranking into the site) is proof in itself of being of the most notable models in the entire industry. His profile also shows he was Calvin Klein exclusive in 2015 (the most prestigious brand contract that can be bestowed on a male model), has also walked the runway for Versace, Ralph Lauren, and others. He has also been in ad campaigns for Tom Ford and Steve Madden. These are major and starring involvements in almost all of the top major brand productions in the fashion industry-- especially those that are seen as particularly notable for male models. All of this is very clearly demonstrated in the subject's client work on his Models.com page-- and quite convincingly proves his notability as one of the top male models in the world, in addition to his general notability proven by the Forbes, OUT, and Man of Metropolis in-depth profiles about the subject. To say the model doesn't meet the WP:NMODEL guidelines is clearly showing a lack of knowledge of the modelling industry and perhaps even a lack of fair examination of the sources already provided in the article before making any judgement or criticism. Simply stating something does not prove that statement as fact, without any evidence to backup the argument. I believe this article is of great interest to those in the modelling and fashion community especially, and should most definitely be kept to further enhance Wikipedia and its archival of the history of fashion and culture. Soulman1125 (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No one is questioning the validity of Forbes, the issue with the Forbes, Man of Metropolis, and OUT articles are they are primary support and the article lacks adequate secondary support. {Interviews are considered to be primary support.) You do not seem to understand their is a difference between "real-world" notability and Wikipedia based notability. Wikipedia based notability is not based on popularity, it is based on the establishment of valid non-trivial, in-depth, secondary, independent sources. Show us a couple of independent, in-depth articles written about him. He may be popular, but I don't see how this individual meets the criteria for inclusion. I would also suggest you step back and before saying another editor fails to understand the "Modeling Industry" or fails to exam sources, you make sure you understand the criteria for inclusion. (e.g., WIkipedia based notability vs. "real-world popularity) I would also read WP:AGF before making such concrete statements. The article may enhance Wikipedia, but only if it meets the criteria for inclusion, one that has been defined by many editors over time. reddogsix (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I appreciate your comment and of course I always assume good faith of all editors, and yes, I have read thoroughly the WP:AGF and think it is central to the culture of Wikipedia, and to maintaining a good environment while editors can faithfully help each make this place be the best it can be. I definitely assumed the comment was in good faith, but my concern was that it did not provide any explanation for the argument laid forth-- which obviously I strongly disagree with and attempted to make my case as clearly and respectfully as possible while also openly stating my concerns. My comments addressed that and did not in any way mean to attack the editor, but the lack of argument in the argument itself. Aside from that, I will take a look for ways to address your concerns as soon as possible. Thanks very much! Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am very glad that you agree the Forbes, Man of Metropolis, and OUT articles are valid, independent sources-- and that your only contention for determining notability is that you believe they are primary sources. I also agree that the article may enhance Wikipedia, but only if it meets the criteria for inclusion, one that has been defined by many editors over time. I think this is very important, and this is the standard by which we should let the article bear. If, indeed, you refer to WP:PSTS you will note that it reads a "source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one." It is therefore established that sources can be considered in part primary, and in part secondary, depending on what statement from the source is being referenced. There are parts of the Forbes/OUT/Man of Metropolis interviews that are the subject speaking directly about himself-- and these statements are of course, primary sources, like you stated. But, as defined by Wikipedia editors before us in WP:SECONDARY the statements made by the author prior to the interview about the subject are secondary sources-- not primary. WP:SECONDARY states "a secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." When the author of the Forbes profile of the subject writes in his preface in his own words, this is indeed a secondary, independent, reliable source in the eyes of defining the subject's notability in regards to Wikipedia guidelines. The Forbes author, Joseph DeAcetis, even states that our subject is a "model at one of New York's most esteemed agencies, Soul Artist Management (where he modeled for Tom Ford, Calvin Klein, and various other prominent menswear brands within the fashion industry) within the preface, highlighting the model's stature in the industry and starring involvement in major projects in the modelling industry as well (a critical requirement for WP:NMODEL. This is not the subject stating this in his own words, this is a highly verifiable, highly public and notable, secondary, and independent source giving us this information to source our article by. If you are searching for more secondary sources already present, I highly recommend you examine the Models.com reference in addition, as it is also a secondary, independent, and verifiable source-- and is where a lot of the specific information from the article can be corroborated. This source, I also believe, should be highly regarded both for the subject's WP:GNG considerations, and also the subject's WP:NMODEL requirements, as its list of starring roles in ad campaigns and shows for prominent fashion brands demonstrates the subject "has had significant roles in multiple productions" in the modelling industry, in addition to a "significant cult following" as shown by his social media numbers. I will also be searching for additional secondary sources to further bolster the article as you request when I have more time, but I hope, upon reflection, you may consider my points valid and true and made with good faith. If you do, I hope you consider your concerns addressed, and with that, further consider withdrawing your nomination of this article for deletion. I have seen the amount of editing you do, and sincerely appreciate the amount of work you do to clear up Wikipedia from frivolous, self-promoting articles from people trying to advertise themselves within the entertainment industry-- but I just faithfully do not believe this is one of those articles you should be so pressed to delete. Having said that, I appreciate your views, and thank you for bringing them up for debate. My knowledge and love for Wikipedia has grown in the process. Thanks very much for listening. Much love and thanks. Cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment* Hi Duffbeerforme-- wondering what your reasoning is for saying the subject falls short of WP:NMODEL? The subject is cited as having starring roles of major productions in his field of modelling-- particularly Calvin Klein exclusive contract, Versace, Ralph Lauren, and Tom Ford shows and advertising. These are all major productions that the subject starred in, as cited on the independent and secondary source Models.com reference. Can you please elaborate your views on how the subject does not meet the WP:NMODEL standard? Also, the author of the Forbes article is the Fashion editor of the magazine-- not just a contributer. I do believe the article is subject to very high editorial standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulman1125 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply for Soulman. WP:NMODEL. 3, no suggestion of anything "unique, prolific or innovative". 2, no sign of a "large fan base or a significant "cult" following". 1, No significant roles in notable productions shown. Your vague allusions to Calvin Klein et al does not make his work fit into that criteria. No everything associated with Calvin Klein is notable. A brand is not a production. Forbes article. The byline very clearly states "Joseph DeAcetis Contributor" so yes that article is just from a contributer. What other jobs he may or maynot have does not change the level of editorial control on that article. And No he is not and never was the Fashion editor of the magazine. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply for Duffbeerforme. Hi Duffbeerforme-- very happy to read your explanation but I think there is a lot of readily available information I can provide that would address the concerns you raised. I agree with you on many points (anyone can SAY they are a CK model, but are they? Truly? And did they really star in a major production in the fashion industry for CK if what they say is true? Great point-- I will get to that!), and am sure you are acting in good faith, but I don't believe you have seen the full picture to fully assess-- and I think diving deeper into some more facts about the subject matter may help alleviate your concerns and pursuade you. First-- re: Forbes and the author Joseph DeAcetis-- I misspoke when I described him as the Fashion Editor, his correct title is Forbes 'Style Director'-- an expert in the fashion world for the magazine. A quick Google amassed much of his work directly for the magazine, and verifies that A) he did work for them directly and B) as Style Director of Forbes. In the world of fashion, that is not a small title and I do not believe he should be disregarded as some mere blogger. For example, here is an interview he did on Forbes' official YouTube channel where the description clearly states "Forbes Style Director, Joseph DeAcetis, speaks with the CEO of Rimowa." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08ewJouFE6o) I don't think this should be disregarded in our pursuit of evaluating integrity of the secondary sourcing re: the Forbes article-- although I would also point out that is simply ONE of the sources used to demonstrate notability-- there is also OUT Magazine, Man of Metropolis, The Washington Post, and most importantly regarding notability WP:NMODEL Models.com. Models.com is perhaps the most important marker of notability we have available to us in the modelling industry, and even having a page in itself demonstrates how unique the model is in the industry. You only get one if you are notable, not if you just "say you are a model" like far too many people pretend to on the internet these days. I have expertise in the industry, having worked in and around fashion for many years-- so I can verify this for you-- but don't let me do that: let me provide a key source for you to glean that may demonstrate a few things that can take care of almost all of your concerns and should persuade you to reconsider: please read this New York Times article that was printed in 2013 called 'Don't Know This Face? Just Wait'. The link is here: (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/fashion/dont-know-this-face-just-wait.html) In it, you will see a few things demonstrated very clearly that will lift your expertise in viewing this subject's notability requirements, and demonstrates that if any male model SHOULD pass-- it is someone like him. Reading it will show you that: 1) Models.com is an important, verifiable, and independent source of notability in the modelling industry, as proven by the New York Times itself in this article using it as one of their prime sources mentioned in their explanation of notable models in the industry. 2) That being chosen as Calvin Klein exclusive and walking their show (which is perhaps one of the most important PRODUCTIONS in fashion, as the Times article explains) as CK exclusive for that season is regarded as perhaps the MOST UNIQUE and important achievement a male model can make-- satisfying requirement 3 and 1 of WP:NMODEL. Only 2-5 male models in the entire world achieve this EVERY show season. THAT is unique. Braeden Wright was one of the exclusives of the 2015 season-- the season after the one examined in the Times article. This is clearly demonstrated in the Models.com source on Braeden Wright's page and all over fashion media if you dig a bit deeper-- including into Calvin Klein's YouTube video of the show and any coverage in fashion magazines during that season. Beyond that, his Models.com source of his collection of work in fashion productions, once again, demonstrates even more key starring roles in the most major and exclusive fashion productions in the world. After starring as exclusive in the 2015 Calvin Klein show? He went on to star in the following season for Versace and Ralph Lauren. It is clearly listed on Models.com and if you search in any major fashion magazine that covers the shows, you will see him there. The next year, he starred in a Tom Ford campaign ad. These are very specific and important roles that are clearly demonstrated in his Models.com sourcing. If starring in ad campaigns as exclusives in that season's biggest fashion shows for the most exclusive, important, and notable fashion brands in the world don't count to you as notable roles in significant productions in the fashion industry, I would ask you, what does? The requirements for WP:NMODEL clearly state "Has had significant roles in... stage performances, or other productions." In the modelling industry-- this is ad campaigns and major runway appearances, but don't take my word for it-- take the word of the New York Times. And also, if not, why would the New Yorks Times write an article specifically dedicated to proving just how rare, notable, and major that exact role is? Shouldn't we believe the information provided by our reliable, independent, secondary sources such as this, in good faith, when they are so plainly and clearly in view? I believe the founding guidelines in Wikipedia say we should-- and not base our decision on whether we like or know much about the topic ourselves. Lastly, as far as the cult following requirement for WP:NMODEL is concerned-- Models.com lists his following as 25,000 fans on social media. That is more than enough to fill a major arena, no matter how disinterested any of us may feel about the world of modelling or how niche it is to one person-- that is a significant cult following. I, once again, strongly believe this subject meets notability requirements of WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG, and believe this article being included would make Wikipedia better-- especially for those interested in fashion and modelling. I sincerely hope after reading my comment and the Times article that you reconsider your vote accordingly and re-record it as a "keep". Thanks for hearing me out! Demonstrating these points clearly and thoroughly can be a bit lengthy but I realize the burden of proof is on me. So... Thanks again and much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what an epic. Have a read of tl;dr. Addressing a few points. Models.com is mostly user submitted and is not a reliable source. No good for notability. Nothing unique about being one of multiple people doing the same thing. You make many claims of staring in notable productions but have he to specifically name a single one, let alone provide any evidence of such. You claim exclusive yet the only reference that mentions any exclusive CK models has him in a list of people without being called exclusive. Who was exclusive? Kevin Hubsmith, Malachi Randell, Mark Syptak. Nothing that special about being an employee. New York Times article, another article that does not mention him. Your claim of cult following, pure original research. Your own personal interpretation about a rather unimpressive number of followers. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Read tl;dr. Was trying to be clear yet thorough as it seemed your opinion, while appearing to be in good faith and experienced in Wikipedia, did not seem rooted in expertise in the subject matter. I'll instead be direct as possible, as you request:
1) Reference DOES mention him as exclusive. Clearly states "Braeden Wright (exclusive)" amongst the names you mentioned. Please correct. Thanks.
2) Models.com is NOT mostly user submitted as you state. Unsubstantiated and false claim. They have a full editorial board screening their articles and content, office based in NYC. Here is their masthead as proof: (https://models.com/company/masthead.html). From my knowledge in the industry, and as demonstrated in the New York Times article, Models.com is one of the most respected and powerful independent news sources on the modelling industry. The New York Times used Models.com as the industry benchmark for determining corroborating model information and especially, notability. Clearly demonstrated by my arguments and the article I provided (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/fashion/dont-know-this-face-just-wait.html). If the New York Times deems Models.com worthy as their independent, secondary source on model information and notoriety, we should.
3) I have not provided specific links to references in my AfD comments for Braeden Wright's starring roles in stage performances and productions as per WP:NMODEL because the article clearly already references them with evidence (please see Reference 2). When I refer to them (Calvin Klein runway S/S '15 exclusive, Tom Ford ad campaign, Versace S/S '16 runway show, etc.) clearly I am assuming you have done your due diligence to thoroughly read the article. Anyone with credentialed knowledge of the modelling/fashion world would already recognize these exactly as they are: starring roles in stage performances and productions in fashion/modelling. WP:NMODEL specifically states this as a requirement for models, so you cannot say that these performances and productions do not exist for models; and state that the models were merely "employed" by the brand. Furthermore, these specific starring roles are of the most notable and influential performances and productions in fashion, and they ARE performances and productions. These aren't some mall fashion shows in small town Nowhereville where people happen to be wearing the brands, these are THE major runway shows and ad campaigns for each season of some of the most notable fashion brands in the world. This is what notable models do. Another reason I provided the Times piece for your knowledge, as it clearly explains such about one such starring role our subject has accomplished: Calvin Klein exclusivity in their Spring/Summer '15 Milan collection fashion show. Again, the others of note, but not the only ones: subject starred in the Versace Spring/Summer '16 collection Milan fashion show, Ralph Lauren's Spring/Summer '16 Presentation, Tom Ford's Fall/Winter '17 Ad Campaign, and a Steve Madden ad campaign. Please examine Reference 2 in the article thoroughly. Again if these are not what you qualify as starring roles in stage performances and productions in modelling, then what do you qualify? WP:NMODEL clearly states these roles MUST exist, or else it would not be listed so specifically in the requirement. George Clooney or Brad Pitt may be employed by Warner Bros. to star in a movie, but just because they are employees does not mean they are merely employees.
4) Thank you for adding this to the fashion deletion discussion-- hopefully more people with expertise can corroborate my arguments here with more authority. Cheers. Soulman1125 (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what an epic. Have a read of tl;dr.
1. I see you've updated that page. It now lists him as exclusive.
2. Allow me to quote models.com themselves. "Please keep in mind the vast majority of content on Models.com is submitted by its users" [1].
3. Reference 2 is not a reliable source an does not show that any of his jobs were notable probuctions. Looking at CK. A "Calvin Klein exclusive contract" is not a production. That one runway show shows no sign of being notable.
4. Or more likely they will see through your exaggeration and hyperbole.
On an earlier claims of yours, "and quite convincingly proves his notability as one of the top male models in the world". That source you're relying on, models.com, does not seem to think so [2]. "demonstrates that if any male model SHOULD pass-- it is someone like him". What, ahead of the likes of Fabio, Tyson Beckford, Brad Kroenig (look an aritcle about him [3]), etc? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) I have no power to edit Models.com. An unsubstantiated personal attack is beneath this community. Read WP:PA before you make another accusation with zero evidence. Talk about assuming good faith.
2) That statement is about their copyright policy about photo and video copyrighted content, not their database of knowledge, models profiles, or their news articles-- their catalog of media consists of a massive database of videos, shows, advertisements-- that been provided to Models.com by copyright holders. What a cherry picked claim to try to disgrace an entire website's credibility. With full context, your claim looks quite poor.
3) Reference 2 is not credible? Then why do the models of note you provide as the gold standard USE IT AS THEIR MAIN REFERENCE AS WELL? Please look at the Wikipedia pages of Brad Kroenig and Tyson Beckford-- what's that you see? A main reference of MODELS.COM. Thanks for proving my point yourself. By your own point of solid model articles that make the cut, you've highlighted exactly the standard the Wiki community has already set precedent to follow: Models.com counts as a credible, independent, secondary source of information, especially about top notable models. I sent you that New York Times article specifically on that Calvin Klein show, in good faith, to highlight just how notable it is-- perhaps the most notable men's show production in fashion. The evidence is pretty unequivocal (thanks New York Times!) no matter how many times you state your unsubstantiated opinion of it not being notable, without any backup, claiming brevity and completely avoiding my counterpoint points as your backup. I invite the Wikipedians in this thread to read it (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/fashion/dont-know-this-face-just-wait.html) and note, once again, that this is merely ONE of the major productions he starred in, as referenced very clearly in the subject's article page, again, specifically in Reference 2, but in others provided as well.
Also, again-- he is profiled in OUT Magazine, Man of Metropolis magazine, in addition the the Washington Post and Forbes references, on top of Models.com. Allow me to reference Wikipedia's notability guideline WP:N VERY specifically: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
The compilation of sources referencing our subject pass the bar of WP:GNG alone even aside from him passing WP:NMODEL (which I believe he does), even despite your criticisms.
You might want to read WP:TLDR yourself-- specifically "Being too quick to pointedly mention this essay may come across as dismissive and rude. Preferably, create a section on their talk page and politely offer advice there. Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordiality stoops to ridicule and amounts to thought-terminating cliché." Thanks x Soulman1125 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another epic.
1. When I commented on 14 September it did not say exclusive. On 16 September it did not say exclusive, as seen at wayback [4]. When you comment in 19 September it has been changed to say exclusive. Was that just an amazing coincidence? Was the uncharacteristic 5 days before your reply here to give the page time to update?
(Going back further [5] it did not even mention him.)
2. Allow me to quote models.com themselves. "Please keep in mind the vast majority of content on Models.com is submitted by its users," [6]. The vast majority of their content, unqualified. Yes they do have a staff. Note this article by one of their staff, note the existance of a byline.
3. Reference 2 is not a reliable source. I never said not credible. Strawman. Other pages might use models.com. Many pages also use imdb at it is still recognised as not being a reliable source. Regardless, that page is a primary source, straight from CK. (Beckford page using models.com the main reference? No, clearly not, used only once to verify minor details. Do you realise that when make such hyperbolic claims people can actually check for themselves and don't have to take your dubious words at face value.) You keep going on about that New York Times article but it still does not mention him. That one runway show still shows no sign of being notable. Just being one of multiple people walking on a runway is not in itself starring.
Allow me to quote the New York Times article. "Above all, they get a shot at stardom." and "Being cast in a Calvin Klein show, Mr. Bart added, “is still the opportunity to become that new face, the next Marky Mark.”" and “Yes, it’s a fashion show, so it’s ultimately about the clothes,”. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 2 is a reliable source-- if we gauge it on the meter and criteria explicitly provided by OFFICIAL Wikipedia guidelines-- as opposed to your opinion, or referencing Wiki essays like WP:TLDR-- which clearly state "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." Please keep in mind that arguments made standing on the official guidelines take precedence over your opinion or these essays you have chosen to bring up repeatedly. I still hope you are acting in good faith and despite your challenges, I appreciate hearing opposing views-- but do not appreciate the level of personal attack and lack of WP:AGF that has appeared through your string of comments towards me personally. Regardless, I will not participate in that level of discussion, and I extend an olive branch to you to remind you that we are all here to try to make Wikipedia better. Instead, let me get back to citing official Wikipedia guidelines and policy in counter to your claim that Models.com is not a reliable, secondary source. Again, that section you reference is within their media copyright infringement policy-- and in my view is clearly referencing the mass amounts of photo and video content within their site. Their website is also a database-- the primary material collected within is of course submitted by users who hold the copyright-- but the way it is then collected, analyzed, and presented in a new form is in itself secondary WP:SECONDARY. We are not at Calvinklein.com-- we are at Models.com, who has collected and repackaged primary material from Calvinklein.com, etc. in a newly synthesized and now secondary form. They did not create the show themselves, they have nothing to do with it-- they are analyzing it independently from it. An independent source assembling primary sources to create something new through "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas" is exactly what secondary source is as clearly outlined in WP:SECONDARY. So, again, your claim that it is primary is incorrect under the definition of official Wikipedia guidelines.
More importantly to our debate on the use of Models.com towards notability-- your opinion that it is not reliable seems in stark contrast to official Wikipedia guidelines. According to it, WP:SOURCES it clearly passes especially when examining this specific phrase: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks, Books published by respected publishing houses, Magazines, Journals, Mainstream newspapers, Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria." Models.com is a well respected mainstream publication, and is respected by other mainstream publications as such-- as specifically evidenced by the New York Times piece I referred to you, as evidenced by their use as Models.com as their own reliable source for information on models. That was one of the main reasons I brought it to this discussion-- not because it did or did not mention the subject of the article. If you disagree-- I would love to hear your arguments provided with specific evidence specifically referencing official Wikipedia guidelines. I am open to your thoughts and arguments, but this discussion is not a place for opinion or unsubstantiated arguments footed on merely personal views, references to unofficial Wikipedia essays or referring to policy without explicitly stating how and why it backs up what you propose. Hope you have a great day and looking forward to hearing from you. Cheers x. Soulman1125 (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One final point-- you keep framing the subject's starring roles as only this Calvin Klein S/S '16 show-- and attacking that one event as not notable. Again, as clearly demonstrated by the article and Models.com already, he has had plenty more starring roles (as per WP:NMODEL) after that. Models.com, Forbes, W Magazine, Man of Metropolis all refer to the other starring roles that followed over years-- Tom Ford ad campaign, Steven Madden ad campaign, Versace, etc. For the third time-- if these are not starring roles in modelling, then what is? You continue to refuse to answer the question and disregard this entirely. Looking forward to hearing your rebuttal. Again, all my best. Cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of the song "Talkin' Loud and Sayin' Nothing". Good song.
"collected, analyzed, and presented in a new form", Nope, no analysis
"who has collected and repackaged primary material from Calvinklein.com", Nope, they didn't collect, "primary material collected within is of course submitted by users who hold the copyright".
I could go on but you don't listen.
Regardless of the way you want to frame models.com it doesn;t matter as they have not written anything about Wright.
Interesting emphasis on the quote from SOURCE, w=you missed the important word, reliable.
You keep saying Starring roles but have yet to back up that claim. Where is the independent sourcing that discuss his role? You have also not yet identified a single specific notable production he supposedly starred in. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Forbes source has gotten a lot of mention in this thread, but I doubt its validity as a reliable source. It is not from the magazine, but rather, Forbes.com, which is hot/cold on the quality of submitted contributor articles. Such things are essentially carefully disguised blog posts that do not reflect independent editorial oversight, despite whatever pedigree individual contributors bring to the table. This one, an interview with the subject, has received only 1,500 views per their own page count, not much compared to the "71.1 million unique visitors" touted above. I'm holding off on i-voting, though. My expertise is mostly in the field of music promotion/marketing (and I believe he fails notability music-wise), although this subject deserves equal assessment as a fashion model--a topic I'm not too knowledgable about. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hi ShelbyMarion-- I agree that the subject deserves equal assessment as a fashion model especially. I just wrote a lengthy comment above yours that goes into great detail to explain how the subject clearly passes WP:NMODEL and would greatly appreciate it if you could read it in full and weigh your opinion accordingly. I hope you will find that the arguments I have raised satisfy your concerns and all of Wikipedia's written rules on demonstrating WP:NMODEL of the subject. Also-- the New York times article I provided is a great read in itself! Hope you enjoy and thanks for participating. Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more time to develop consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see any good reasons to keep this spam? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as other editors have also noted, it passes WP:GNG, and as I have argued, it also passes WP:NMODEL. Whether you're personally interested in the article's subject, dismissing it as "spam" isn't as relevant as it meeting the official Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion-- which it does. Soulman1125 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As other editors have noted, it fails WP:GNG. Other than yourself no one has gone past WP:PERPOLICY. You have only pointed to primary sources, database listing and interviews, none of which satisfy gng. You have thoroughly bludgeoned this afd with your claim of passing NMODEL but you have yet to identify a single specific notable production where he has a verified starring role. I once again ask you to back up your claim with coverage from independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After much input from other editors, I have taken it upon myself to be bold and trim a significant amount of fat from the article-- as recommended by users in this thread who voted "Keep". I trimmed nearly half of the Music Career section that could have been seen as overly promotional in wording, a possibly overly promotional sounding sentence from the Modelling Career section, and the Personal Life section altogether-- as another editor had already aptly and correctly removed the citation used for that information (an Instagram post that disqualifyingly referenced a third party, even though blog posts published by the subject of Biographical articles are permitted per Wiki guidelines as long as they follow certain rules-- one of which that particular citation did break WP:SELFSOURCE.) I think these changes and those already made by other editors has greatly improved things. Thank you to everyone for your input-- I think the article has been much improved by this process. Much love and cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your hard work! --David Tornheim (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2018 (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/Braeden_Wright&oldid=862340104"