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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Mancini (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)

No assertion of notability. The only editors are SPAs, so a prod would likely be an automatic failure. The subject is an Italian model whose article is not borne out by third-party sources, but rather is extrapolating statements of professional activity and notability based on pictures in galleries and links to his management agencies and such (WP:TRIVIAL). I removed some blatant copyvio that was sourced to a different source in which it did not appear, but the article is peppered with RS issues, and I decided I'd bring it to AfD rather than effectively blank the article, but it's so unsourceable that that might as well be the case. MSJapan (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 01:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 01:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No third party reliable sources pertaining to WP:GNG: agency pages and Vogue seems to just about sum it up. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A quick Google search produces almost 500,000 results! Models.com and Vouge.com are widely used sources for models on Wikipedia. Whether these two references constitutes enough notability as a model to have an entry on our encyclopedia, I don't know, but it seems to me sufficient sources could be found for a small, well-written article. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 14:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-just a question: how many of those 500,000 hits are not blogs, YouTube, FaceBook, Instagram...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, very true, but Google search results are sometimes used in notability discussions to establish how frequent an individuals name is mentioned on the internet. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 15:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a lot of hits, but they are primarily just a name and some photos - there's no depth of coverage of the person, which is really what's needed for a BLP. MSJapan (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, going just by the number of hits on Google is listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Essentially, the quality of the sources found by a search engine matters far more than the quantity. Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Hmm. Are we saying that Vogue - VOGUE?!? - isn't a reliable source for evidence of notability of fashion or models? It's only one of the most internationally famed fashion magazines in the world. Anmyway, having had a look around, even after filtering out a lot of the clearly useless sources, I see a lot of sources in various languages on him which is evidence of international awareness and notability. Although there's a TON of bumf to filter through, I did find some sources that seem more reliable than usual, such as a piece in IO Donna, a notable Italian magazine: [1], and an extensive piece in what seems to be a well-established online Dutch magazine with editorial team and control. And a model being the subject/focus of a piece in Vogue such as this is a huge deal in fashion and very rare for any but the most noteworthy models. The article is lightweight, but it does go into a little depth about the model and his regime, so I think when taken in conjunction with the other sources, it helps build up evidence of notability. Mabalu (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - The issue is that Vogue is not RS when its coverage is not independent of the subject, which an interview with the subject is clearly not. You even address some of the problem with that last article, where the coverage is "lightweight." WP:RS requires non-trivial coverage independent of the subject, so if everything is "lightweight" or interviews, we end up with a policy-based issue with trying to establish notability, which is my entire basic argument. MSJapan (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - On the other hand, we have to consider the nature of the material out there. There is a general tendency to sneer at fashion coverage as trivial and unworthy, particularly by editors who don't care about the subject or dismiss it offhand because it's not seen as weighty or worthy enough. If the Vogue source was the only one out there it certainly wouldn't be good enough, but it can be used to support an argument of general notability in conjunction with the two more substantial articles. Personally, I'm not really fussed about contemporary models, being more interested in designers and creators and general fashion, but from what I can see, I don't see a compelling reason to delete the article. Now if only people would get this invested in getting rid of all those trashy beauty pageant articles about young ladies whose sole claim to notability is usually that they mastered the art of smiling and walking at the same time in high heels and using their bodies to get men to award them prizes. Mabalu (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Independent" in the context of notability means having no vested interest in the subject. For example, the official corporate website of a subject definitely has a vested interest in promoting the subject, so we can't expect it to reveal all the negative details on that subject. However, just because an otherwise reputable magazine directly interviews a subject, that in itself does not mean the magazine has a vested interest in the subject. If it still has autonomy over what information it wants to publish, it is still considered independent of the subject. See Wikipedia:Independent sources. Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for reasons stated by Mabalu above. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I will accept Vogue as a RS for notability of a model. I don't buy the argument that an interview of the subject is not independent. An interview by a reliable independent source is an effective establishment of notability. Fieari (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - My reasoning on the matter is that an interview is entirely the direct words of the subject, so it can't be independent of the subject, and at best would be a primary source at that point. MSJapan (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @MSJapan: The reason this doesn't hold water for me is the fact that it was published. A personal blog is non-independant. However, an interview was curated, edited, reviewed, and generally underwent an indepedant review process before being published. Yes, it's the subject's words, but the magazine selected which words of the subject to publish, and the questions were picked by the magazine as well. The entire situation is vastly different from a personal essay, blog, vlog, or whatever that we would not accept as coverage from an independant source. The magazine is not owned, nor controlled by the subject. This makes all the difference. Fieari (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I'm concerned both in terms of how much of a 'puff piece' the current article looks as well as the fact that tabloid-type sources are being brought up. However, I'm more inclined to keep the article then get rid of it, even if it should be reduced significantly in size, given the detailed reporting by both IO Donna and Vogue. I also think that his high placement in various "list of ___" type articles is a matter in his favor. An appropriate article would be considerably different than what we have now, but I think it wouldn't be nothing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft at best instead for now as the article could at best actually be acceptable but we can also certainly wait a better article thus, although I was going to initially only go with Delete, I am willing to Draft if needed instead. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Weak, because I haven't evaluated all of the sources. I only looked at the one source which is being put forth as the most significant, i.e. the interview in Vogue. Normally, I would agree that Vogue is one of the most important publications in the fashion world, and thus certainly can be a WP:RS. But, the interview cited is just a bunch of softball questions lobbed at the subject, as a starting point for what I assume are carefully crafted responses and a framework on which to hang a bunch of soft-porn shots of abs and pecs. I don't know, maybe that's just how things work in the fashion world, but it doesn't strike me as the kind of sources we're looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2016 (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.