Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Fusco


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Francesca Fusco

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

z: Promotional. Rathfelder (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep She is famous dermatologist, please seee this link -
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/magazine/the-unveiling.html


 * More
 * http://www.debbreport.com/directory/entry/dr.-francesca-fusco/


 * http://www.redonline.co.uk/beauty/10-best/adding-sugar-to-shampoo


 * Interview
 * https://thelondonlassie.com/interview/dr-francesca-fusco/


 * Thakhinma (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. As she appeared quite often on TV, it's worth keeping the article, to be available, when she's next on TV. NearEMPTiness (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Fusco is notable dermatologist, i well known in Sunsilk advertising on Burmese Televisions and more. 楊過007 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC) 楊過007 has been blocked for sock-puppetry power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve sources. Francesca Fusco as a celebrity hair expert should meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 07:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I was ready to wield the deletion bludgeon, but THIS TV appearance indicates a "recognized expert" status. Also spotted passing mention in a New York Times piece. So I'll note my lack of venom after a cursory Google sweep and move along. Carrite (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete none of the references in the article suggest notability; the NYTimes mention is a trivial one-line mention and the others are even less supportive of GNG. She does botox in New York City, and none of the references suggest any notability beyond that. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing comes even close to showing she meets notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve sources Fusco id a celebrity dermatologist in New York. She is a world-leading expert in Dermatology and Dermatologic surgery. I think this article is notable issue.
 * I found in this sources links
 * http://www.clearhaircare.com/article/detail/905360/meet-dr-fusco
 * http://www.beautyinthebag.com/wordpress/meet-dr-francesca-fusco-nyc-cosmetic-dermatologist/
 * https://www.allure.com/story/dermatologist-francesca-fusco


 * MahamayuriSMK (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC) (MahamayuriSMK is a CU confirmed socks of楊過007  Matthew_hk   t  c  05:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC))


 * Are you paid to produce this rubbish? Rathfelder (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I am afraid User:MahamayuriSMK was yet another sock of User:楊過007 which the sockmaster was banned for creating User:Thakhinma, so these comments and vote by them should be ignored. (See also Sockpuppet investigations/楊過007 for the evidence i submitted for MahamayuriSMK) Matthew_hk   t  c  08:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable source to have extended in-depth coverage on the subject, just one sentence mention the name and her suggestion, fail WP:GNG Matthew_hk   t  c  03:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Doing a Google News search brings up some positive leads. I see coverage in Orticalab (sorry, Italian's not good enough), Vogue and Marie Claire. Seems she has been covered quite a bit in publications geared towards women and beauty therapy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The orticalab piece appears to be an interview with a swimmer unrelated to the article's subject. Rentier (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete As far as I can tell, the sources are limited to passing mentions / quotes by the subject (e.g. Marie Claire, Vogue), an interview, directory listings and a piece in New York Times containing some advice by the subject but not focused on her. Not enough to meet WP:GNG, and the fact that the article was created by a blocked sock does not make it any better. Rentier (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've closed AfDs for porn stars as "keep" with less coverage that is in the article as I write this. Ritchie333 [[User talk:Ritchie333|(talk)

]] (cont) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And there was me thinking that Reedsy (where we both voted delete) had stronger coverage than this subject... Rentier (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you made, and are making, mistakes on both Reedsy and this article? The mistake being that you feel yourself empowered to judge the strength of reliable sources rather than their existence. I think this is a slippery path in that by trying to measure the strength of a source, we are overriding the judgment of the editors of publications such as The Guardian and others, and substituting our personal ideas about a subject's notability. My advice is: please stick to the general notability guideline. It has worked, it works, it will work in the future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The GNG has always been open to interpretation and there is no clarity to be gained by "sticking to it". I prefer to see a bit more depth of coverage - I don't think a decent, neutral article can be written here without sacrificing reliability and accuracy. In addition, as far as I'm aware, there is consensus that interviews don't normally contribute to notability, so neither should one-sentence pieces of advice given by the subject. Rentier (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist
 * Keep Sources meet the GNG. Article is a bit promotional however and should be trimmed, if kept.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I found some information profiling her on HighBeam and added it. She's not just "a go-to dermatologist" in the US, she's pretty international. The amount of articles she's in as an expert is pretty staggering. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baby miss fortune 00:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Checked the sources. She meets the GNG. gidonb (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete- Does not meet notability for academics. There are plenty of good doctors that are not notable. Just because the media likes her does not make her notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage in reliable and verifiable sources is what makes her notable. Alansohn (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: The living person look find to WP:GNG for me, it doesn't seem to be deleted. I agree with User:Optakeover, the reference sources need to be improved. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to withdraw. The article is much improved.  She might not qualify as a notable academic, but that is not the only way doctors can be notable. Rathfelder (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.