Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolina Bucci
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) —Theopolisme 15:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Carolina Bucci (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)
Sorry, doesn't seem notable to have an article on a minor active designer, using WP as a marketing platform Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Some of the sources currently in the article are not good as the links do not work properly, but that is no reason to delete. She has been around since 2005 according to the hits on Google News, and has come to the attention of international fashion magazines such as Vogue over the same period, which demonstrates notability. She has also had her work exhibited at multiple venues. She is clearly a successful jewellery designer and seems to qualify as notable. Yes, the article was probably created to be promotional, but that can be fixed. Mabalu (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you support keeping the article, I have made a pass at cleaning it up, but did not add new references.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - some of the sourcing in the article is problematic, but there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. For example, Vogue has multiple reviews of her work: [1], [2]. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2012 (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.