Talk:Faretta

Contested deletion

It’s truly disarming that at this point people can’t see the blatant evidence of notability here. Just because there is a vendetta to delete pages of women doesn’t mean that additional, sufficient sources haven’t been added since that misguided AfD. --Trillfendi (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I have declined the speedy nomination as the current version is substantially different than the version which was deleted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Other bio details

I have seen her surname listed as "Radic" here, and that her dob seems to be 10 March 1998 here. Not great RS, but don't seem to be disputed facts? Britishfinance (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: I came across her birth date via a social media post by Elite Model Management but I opted not to use it. Radic is her surname but she only uses Faretta. Like Dilone. Trillfendi (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Trillfendi. I think if all RS imply 10 March 1998, then it could be considered as it is always a good fact to have in BIOs? thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: FMD is not a reliable source. "Healthyceleb.com", which literally guesses celebrity weights, dress sizes, body dimensions, etc as editorial policy, is absolutely not a reliable source. Trusting a model's agency on their birthdate, height, etc has its own perils, given that agencies routinely misrepresent ages and heights to help their models get more go-sees and bookings (a good academic study of this: [1]). I've seen your editing elsewhere so I'm sure you mean well, but I hope you'll consider that encouraging an editor who just came off a block for WP:BLP issues to test the limits of WP:DOB for a living person, particularly based on poor sourcing, is not a great idea. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Indignant Flamingo. When a DOB is suggested (from whatever source), then sometimes via google search of that DOB, you can then track it to the BLP's twitter feed (or other direct source information such as a corporate profile from their own firm/agency), and although WP:PRIMARY, it can be acceptable as a source for core uncontroversial biofacts like a BLP's dob (per WP:BLPSELFPUB). It not a BLP violation, but a way of sourcing core unambigious bio-facts online. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: Then let me suggest, in an entirely friendly way, that maybe next time you can follow your own advice and look up a reliable source first, rather than posting multiple unreliable sources for a living person's date of birth? Thanks. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

HI Indignant Flamingo. I am happy to leave the data-points on a talk page for editors who are more interested in the BLP to use to track down better RS (or not). Models are not an area of interest for me, so leaving the data-point is the limit of my interest I'm afraid. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This RS(?) lists her as age 20 as at 31 March 2018 Dubrovnik Times, which may help – now that is definitely the limit of the work I am going to do on this topic :) Britishfinance (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)