This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Enough is enough. Here is models.com's list of Top 50 models who are currently working and where her name falls in alphabetical order.[1] What is the bloody controversy? NOTHING in the top paragraph says that that list is "fourth tier" in relation to the other ranking lists and the lists themselves are not ranked! They're just listed. So what is the issue with saying that as of this time she is listed as a Top 50 model by the leading publication on models and their careers? Because I can list about 10 other articles on the top of my head where the models.com rankings, especially of Top 50 models and "Industry Icons" are of note! Show me where it says that this list is "fourth tier".Trillfendi (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this is what the paragraph says about the list and how it works, I see nothing about it being "fourth tier" or negating its own relevance:
"Clients set the bar for today's models and it's their choices that create coveted girls who are poised to become the next generation of supermodels. From the daily call sheets of top photographers (Meisel, Inez & Vinoodh, Mert & Marcus) to the steady bookings of editorial giants (Vogue, V, i-D, W) and powerhouse brands (Balenciaga, Prada, Vuitton, Calvin Klein) can be culled a clear message about who are the most wanted models of the moment.
In an increasingly competitive market, flooded with hundreds of "cool editorial girls", it's the campaigns and contracts that are the final index of how crucial a model is at any given moment. The models of the Top 50 have risen through the ranks and impressed designers, casting directors, photographers and more. Their combination of prestigious covers, choice campaign bookings and consistent blue-chip editorials sets them apart from their competitors. These beauties have proven themselves and are well positioned to graduate to one of the other major rankings and become future superstars.
The campaigns and covers counted here include only the ones booked in the last 12 months with top magazines and fashion & cosmetic brands."Trillfendi (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For god's sake. Enough is indeed enough. The same paragraph you quote says that those on the list are "well positioned to graduate to one of the other major rankings and become future superstars". That language makes it clear that, despite the site's hype-infested language and labels, this is a lower-tier list. Find a reliable source that says otherwise, or that these rankings are actually reflective of stature in the industry. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So YOU alone have decided that models.com's Top 50 list is unreliable and "lower tier" even though it is cited in multiple model's Wikipedia articles. Even Doutzen Kroes's introduction has a quote from models.com's "The Money Girls" list (which one could argue is equally "irrelevant" as some girls in the Top 50 are also "Money Girls") describing her as the "Helen of Troy of advertsing". Someone like Sasha Luss or Edita Vilkeviciute's articles note multiple lists that these models happen to be on in models.com including Top 50 models. How is the Top 50 list an unreliable source yet it seems to be reliable when the media talks about Kendall Jenner, Gigi Hadid, or Bella Hadid--oh wait--maybe because they're more famous. Apparently then the list is "pretigious".[2][3][4] Speaking of Bella Hadid, her introduction blithely accounts models.com's voters who are people in the industry selecting her as Model of the Year 2016. But feel free to delete that too. Now, it isn't like the precious Vogue, Elle, or W magazine are making these lists too because that's not what they do, this is what models.com does... they literally track models careers. It's pretty high concept. And this isn't some rinky dink tabloid like Hollywood Life. Clearly models.com is a notable publication in the industry, albeit online.Trillfendi (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop your snarly histrionics; you're ignoring what your own sources say. The Harper's Bazaar article is quite clear: "the Top 50 tracks the less established but upcoming models-of-the-moment, while the “New Supers” and “The Money Girls” lists contains the reigning supermodels. It is quite plain that you're referring to a lower-tier list as though it was top-tier. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Histrionics? You sign everything with "treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006".... Anyway, I never said the Top 50 denoted a "supermodel" (subjective term these days regardless, the only true supermodel right now is Gisele Bündchen. She has out-earned every model by far at least $20 million for about the past 10 years and has the most recognition outside of the fashion world.), yet the media calls the aforementioned Bella Hadid, Gigi Hadid, and Kendall Jenner "supermodels" every chance they get [and all three of them happen to be in the Top 50]; they have been working in high fashion about just as long as Rianne van Rompaey, approximately 3 years. But who has 100 million social media followers and the famous last names to begin with? Hmm, that might have something to do with it. Rianne van Rompaey is just that, a young, up-and-coming model of note. Still, it doesn't negate the fact that the campaigns and covers counted here include only the ones booked in the last 12 months with top magazines and fashion & cosmetic brands. So people on the "New Supers" list wouldn't be on there anyway, nor would "Industry Icons". And still, nothing on models.com indicates that one list is any more important than the other. Rianne van Rompaey herself was nominated for "Model of the Year" in 2016. And still, being considered "Top 50" isn't irrelevant, insignificant, or "lower tier" (which is your opinion) because before they ranked them in alphabetical order, being the Number One Model in the World on the Top 50 meant something. For Lara Stone[5][6] who is known for being curvier than most high fashion models and it meant something for Joan Smalls to take that crown as Number One.[7][8] Now just because Rianne van Rompaey or most of the models on that Top 50 list are less "established", doesn't mean they aren't considered the Top 50. It isn't a matter of hyped up semantics, it's a matter of the work that they have been doing in campaigns, editorial, and advertising. I didn't create that list.Trillfendi (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
