Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the cover of I-D magazine

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the cover of I-D magazine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contains excessive amounts of ~~statistical data~~ named data without any prose to explain their purpose, or in-line citations to verify their content, which goes against ~~WP:NOTSTATSBOOK~~, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:STAND, and potentially WP:OR.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note original rationale was as presented here, subsequently altered after discussion below.[1] postdlf (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can understand the nominator's concerns, but it ought to be noted that being a Vogue cover model has long been a hallmark of notability for fashion models. See for example the results of a GBooks search [2]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment: Perhaps the Vogue ones are sufficient to be kept, and maybe merging them all into a new article List of Vogue cover models, with sub-sections for each country. That'll at least give the article stance to be a potential feature artticle. But the other non-Vogue ones don't seem to be nontable, and come across as the creator using Wikipedia for a speadsheet-type database; and Wikipedia is not a webhosting services. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator has misunderstood WP:OR. First, it does not require citations within an article. The policy is that all information must be verifiable. So the fact that information does not yet have citations does not mean it is OR. It is only OR if it's not possible to have citations for it. Second, where we have magazine issue dates, that is a citation (and a source is reliable for its own content), unless it's argued that the cover model is somehow not identifiable from the issue itself (i.e., they're wearing a mask and no caption says who they are). On a separate point, I agree with the previous commenter that these have varying merit and should not have been lumped together, because being on the cover of one magazine may be significant within a given industry and being on the cover of another may be completely trivial. Or the covers of certain magazines may have themselves gained significant attention regardless of who is on them. postdlf (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on List of Russian fashion models being a perfectly notable list alone. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even notice that in the list; that's obviously completely different than the magazine cover lists, and its inclusion here shows some serious lack of care on the part of the nominator in examining these. I think speedy close is really the only way to close this, in favor of more narrowly targeted AFDs. postdlf (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: perhaps one needs to be reminded about assuming good faith before shooting their mouth off and openly stating that a nominator has a "serious lack of care". That is not a nice thing to say about anyone, and I sure as hell would never say it to any user who nominates things. The user who created all of these articles also created a string of other "list of" articles, all of which lacked notability. It was another user (I assume to be an administrator) who advised to link all of these too for further investigation. So telling me I have "lack of care" before checking into the whole facts is a bad faith comment to make. Please kindly redact your remarks. Thanks you. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that you included the Russian model list in this AFD just because it was created by the same editor, that doesn't exactly help your case. Add to that your completely incorrect application of WP:OR, your bizarre claim that these lists have "excessive amounts of statistical data" (I see no statistics in any of these lists), and your inclusion of lists of potentially widely varying merit under the same generic rationale (and one list of completely different substance, merely the same general subject area), and that makes this a poor nomination, one that does not demonstrate evidence of compliance with WP:BEFORE. If you in fact did perform careful examination of each of these lists and their potential, then as my high school math teacher would say, "show your work." postdlf (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: care to read my comments again and re-word your question? Putting words into someone's mouth is a bad faith thing to do. What I said was that at another AfD I had listed a load of articles that shown statistical voting patterns between countries at the Eurovision Song Contest, upon further investigation it emerged that the editor also created a pile of articles containing lists that had no prose explaining what the lists are about, and no reference section for {{Cite magazine}} refs (which if these models appeared on a magazine as stated, then citing the said magazine properly, is the correct method to carry out, per WP:CITE.

List of Russian fashion models has no prose to explain what the list is about, and therefore makes it look like an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of names without any meaning. Then we have List of Numéro magazine cover models which says it is a "catalogue of names"; have we forgotten that Wikipedia is not a catalogue? I already noted in a comment above that all of the separate lists of Vogue models by country would probably be better off all merged into List of Vogue models. At least in doing so, would allow the article to look half-decent, would benefit from having prose content, and citations - and most likely make it a feature list in Wikipedia quality terms. And if that were to be carried out, then I would withdraw my nominations of those Vogue articles listed. But the burden is not on myself to do such a merge on a topical area that I am unfamiliar with. We then have List of people on the cover of Maxim magazine (Russia), which is just a tabled list of names, with no citations, not even {{Cite magazine}}, nor does it house a references section to give it credibility and notability.

All of these list articles fail the core guidance set out at WP:STAND, which states that "stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines". Most of them fail WP:V as there are no in-line citations to verify the content; most fail WP:NOT; and they are most certainly not written in a neutral point of view. Now, read the guidelines again, and tell like your maths teacher once said "show me your work". Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you said in your nomination in this AFD was "This article contains excessive amounts of statistical data", which none of these lists do. I have no idea why you're mentioning a Eurovision AFD here. But it's pointless to argue about what you've said when anyone can read it, and on the merits you're persisting in the same misunderstandings.

Having a separate references section is merely a formatting choice, as is the use of footnotes or the use of citation templates. That an article currently lacks them (or indeed presently lacks any kind of references, whether in-line, footnoted, or not) has nothing to do with whether the information is actually verifiable. Likewise, whether a topic is notable or not has nothing to do with the current state of an article, but instead only with whether sources exist that would establish notability. In fact, as I already pointed out above, a date for a magazine is a citation for an issue of that magazine regardless of what formatting is used to present it, because that's all the information you need to know what issue to look at to verify that issue's content. But you seem hung up on the irrelevant fact that the date is presented in the tables rather than in a footnote. A deletion rationale that goes no further than the current state of the lists fails, and strongly suggests you didn't consider their potential as is required by BEFORE.

On the list intros, it's also irrelevant what they currently say because they can always be rewritten or expanded. What matters is the substance of the content and the potential of the topic. The (somewhat strange) choice of the word "catalog" in one of the list intros can easily be changed and doesn't determine what the list substantively is. And you're equivocating in any event because one meaning of "catalog" is simply a list, and we clearly mean a different and very specific sense of the word in WP:NOTCATALOG (such as a sales catalog containing "pricing or availability information") that doesn't at all apply here. It's also clear just from the title that List of Russian fashion models should contain fashion models that are Russian, and we routinely and uncontroversially limit such lists to people with articles or who merit articles. There could be a reasonable dispute as to whether it's reasonable to split "fashion models" off as a separate classification (our category system does not do so), but no one has commented on that, and as List of Russian models doesn't yet exist the solution per WP:ATD would be to move it to that title and expand it.

On the merging suggestion for the Vogue lists, no, as a volunteer you're not obligated to perform a merge yourself (though that's not at all what WP:BURDEN, which you linked to, is about), but if you want something done but don't want to do it yourself you can always add an appropriate tag or make a talk page suggestion for others. And once you've admitted that you would not support deletion if merger was performed, you've withdrawn your own deletion nomination regarding those lists (again per WP:ATD, as well as WP:SK#1).

All of this leads me to the conclusion that this nomination should either be withdrawn by you or speedy closed and the Vogue lists tagged for merging so that proposal can be discussed/performed through normal channels. And then if there are any remaining lists for which you can actually present a specific deletion rationale after following BEFORE, then relist them in new AFDs that actually focus on their specific merits. postdlf (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: Too long, didn't read all of it. But the fact you don't know why I mentioned a Eurovision Afd, clearly shows incompetence on your part. I had clearly stated that I had noted of all these model-related articles at that Eurovision AfD for admin consideration into whether they required separate action or not. I was advise to list them all in a new Afd, which is this very AfD. Now, how confusing can that really be? And one cannot demand a "speedy close". Seven days need to pass, unless there is a clear snow ball. The fact that there is a conflict in how these are being seen is perfectly clear that further discussion and input from other editors is required, before any closure can be even contemplated. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I had clearly stated that I had noted of all these model-related articles at that Eurovision AfD for admin consideration..." LOL, no, you didn't clearly state that, and I had to dig through your contribution history to find that AFD (which you didn't link here) and then dig through the edit history of that AFD to find where you had dumped the model links in the middle of it (which you had since removed). You had only said in this discussion that someone somewhere said you should list them together. And what they actually said was that they had nothing to do with the Eurovision AFD so you should list them separately. Which really doesn't matter either way because it was your choice to start this mass nom, no one else's responsibility. I've explained point by point where you're wrong, and suggested a way forward that even leaves open whether some of these lists should be deleted. But you're endlessly arguing irrelevant points rather than responding to substantive rebuttals, so good day, sir. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't any sense in merging all the Vogue covers.... some of these are really long! The UK and US editions go back to the 1950s. Plus there are 12 new ones each year! It would be the longest article on WP. I don't think much introduction is needed either. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question re List of Russian fashion models article, does this mean wikipedia should have a seperate list of fashion models and/or other types of models from every country? (If so, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion has a lot of work to do) Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a bad idea, at least for the countries that have produced a lot of supermodels/notable models. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The nomination's expectation of prose seems to misunderstand the nature of our lists, which mainly serve as indexes to the pages with prose on. ID and Vogue magazines are quite influential in the field of modelling and fashion and their covers are correspondingly significant. For example, see this book by Terry Jones, no less! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talk • contribs)
Delete articles lack prose and sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles lack prose and sources to establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are lists, not articles and so the demand for prose is bizarrely inappropriate. Sources which establish notability per WP:LISTN include:

"Proud as a Peacock": An Historic and Semiotic Analysis of Illustrated "Vogue" Magazine Covers from 1909 and 1911
Vogue Covers: On Fashion's Front Page
In Vogue: The Illustrated History of the World's Most Famous Fashion Magazine
Postcards from Vogue: 100 Iconic Covers
Magazine Covers: art for the people
Unseen Vogue: The Secret History of Fashion Photography
100 Years of Magazine Covers
The Girl on the Magazine Cover: The Origins of Visual Stereotypes in American Mass Media
Magazine Covers
Great Magazine Covers of the World

Andrew D. (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the prose issue is really strange to raise in this context. Their identical arguments are also inappropriately focused on the current state of the lists (i.e., what the "articles lack" at present), rather than addressing the potential of the topics. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The Vogue and I-D lists for sure, based on the substantial evidence presented of their notability. I see no case for deleting List of Russian fashion models although it probably needs to be limited to clearly notable entries. There has been less discussion about Numéro and Russian Maxim, and I suppose a "no consensus" close (i.e., a close without prejudice to more focused AfDs if desired) would be a reasonable alternative outcome for those two. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least a procedural keep for now. Perhaps one could make an argument that some of the minor Vogues don't need lists, and I don't know about Maxim or Numero. But lumping them all together here makes no sense. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Vogue has a decent readership, so they are appropriate lists. And a lot of people might find them useful. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2015 (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.