Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Ward (model)

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) DannyS712 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Ward (model)

[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)

Notability is not inherited. Anyone with the ability to google can take 2 seconds to find out that her sister, Gemma Ward, is considered one of the biggest supermodels of the 21st century. Sophie Ward, however, has no independent sources to establish this article. Only a primary source, an article she wrote about herself in a regional newspaper. Even in an article about her writing a book, they still managed to make it about Gemma’s acting endeavors. For an article of only 6 sentences, what does that tell you? Trillfendi (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as pass of WP:GNG with significant coverage of this specific subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources. In older coverage, there's a 2006 page 2 Sydney Morning Herald profile "In the line of beauty: The lowdown" by Vivienne Skinner (25 Feb 2006) and a 2005 profile as a "rising star" in WWD by Patty Huntington (volume 190, issue 15, page 16S). More recently there is coverage of her writing and publishing efforts ([1] [2] [3] (note text, as this is a photo essay), see also V Magazine volume 65, Summer 2010, page 42.) It's true that someone else in her family is more famous, but that doesn't erase the coverage she has received. Bakazaka (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~~Weak delete~~ As far as I can tell there are at least two, possibly three, people by this name who are "models" so without some direct knowledge it is hard to judge, but even combined the coverage is pretty low. The current referencing in the article does not get over the GNG line, and certainly N is not inherited. I could be convinced to change to keep if some one could properly reference the article, WP:NEXIST not being sufficient here due to the apparent overlapping coverage on multiple people. Aoziwe (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See below for change reason. Aoziwe (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator already pointed out, sources about this Sophie Ward typically mention the relationship to her sister, which makes it easy to figure out who is who. See, for example, the half a dozen sources on this specific subject already provided above. Bakazaka (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did see some of those myself. My concern is aligned with typically mention the relationship to her sister. Does the subject have notability in their own right? Aoziwe (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the sources above is significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources of Sophie Ward and what she has done. The sources also mention that she has a more famous sister. Both of these statements can be true at the same time. Bakazaka (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like to me that the vast majority of the coverage, SMH, Age, West, is soley because the subject has connections to far more famous people, and that if those connections did not exist there would be next to nothing. I think we will just have to agree to disagree. (Note that a male association footballer would romp it in!) Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being related to somebody else famous may have opened doors for her, but she is the primary focus of coverage and mentioning famous relatives does not detract from the fact that she is the primary subject of the article -- Whpq (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: I’m not talking about the article being about the subject it’s clearly about, I’m talking about notability itself. It’s clearly not there. The fact that this article existed so long on a dead primary source says it all. Trillfendi (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was unclear in my wording. She is the primary subject of the news articles. The coverage pointed out by user:Bakazaka is sufficient to show notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: Yet still, nothing has been found for her career that can even independently validate any statement of this article. Not even FMD. “Model exists” and “model moves” aren’t notability. Trillfendi (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles about exclusively the subject in The West Australian (here), the French Vogue (here), the Sunday Times of Western Australia (here), and so on, unearthed by Bakazaka, seal it. The subject meets WP:NPERSON. -The Gnome (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep. Yes you are technically correct as per the current guidelines. People do not have to have done anything particularly notable, they just have to have been noted as having done something not entirely routine by multiple independent reliable sources in a sustained fashion and they ARE notable. In this case the only reason they do get reported on is because of who they have connections to, but none-the-less they are reported on. Aoziwe (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll keep saying it. Coverage about her for being an existing model who got discovered in tandem with her sister yet absolutely nothing to confirm any statement about her career as a model. What’s the point. Trillfendi (talk) 15:48, 7 March 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.