Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vogue (US) cover models


 * 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. Since this has been open for more than a day, I’ll go ahead and close this one. My reading of consensus here - editors have recommended deletion based on these articles being unsourced and amounting to original research, as well as overall problems with how the articles are written. Those favouring retention have provided sources countering these claims of notability and original resource sufficiently. AFD is not a substitute for cleanup and refinements to articles, nor do those supporting retention need to commit to implementing these changes, just prove their case sufficiently as based in policy and outside sources. That’s been done here. (non-admin closure) Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 02:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Vogue (US) cover models

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I already had "List of Vogue Portugal cover models" deleted previously because I noticed the primary contributor relied on original research with absolutely no reliable sources cited. Now the rest of these have to go too. Hell, the majority of these don't even have articles for their market's magazine.
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete All unsourced and violating WP:FANSITE, zero-sourced, and a complete whiff of not reading MOS:FLAG. The external link at the end of the article is better for this purpose than we are.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Question All this information if easily verifiable. Especially US, French, British and several other Vogue publications. If I remember, these articles do not require sourcing for publication, just that the information is available to be sourced. While being a Vogue cover model may not be what it was 10 years ago, for nearly 70 years preceeding 2010 it was a huge honor and highly presitgious. Is all that correct? If the information is easily sourcable, it is a prestigious honor for 80 years of publication, and the list has been published for years it appears. Shouldn't this be a keep? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There’s a flip side to that coin. This is all LISTCRUFT. Trillfendi (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Clearly original research, listcruft. WP:LISTN requires evidence in reliable sources that these are notable as a group, which is not present and does not show in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Each magazine issue is a reliable source for its own content. So long as we have the issue's date, and the model is unambiguously identifiable from it (such as by credits or cover caption), there is no OR concern and the claim that these are unsourced is simply false. Note also there was a prior nomination including some of these lists at Articles for deletion/List of people on the cover of I-D magazine, which should be linked above. One of the commenters in that discussion cited a number of sources on this topic, which may or may not give some context for maintaining some of these lists, worth considering at least. I think there is a good argument that some of the international versions may not merit the same treatment regardless, particularly if as the nom mentions, they do not all have independent articles. postdlf (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Though it's a primary source, at least the i-D one has a reliable source for all the covers listed. Evidently, the same can't be said here. Trillfendi (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that there be a single source that covers a whole list, if that's the point you're trying to make here (or if no such source exists for any of these lists, which I don't know). postdlf (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep There are a number of books dealing with Vogue covers and their models available from many publishers. The Creative Director of the M.E.T. Museum even publsihes one. You can also search google for "Vogue Archive" and see every cover ever published.. You just aren't interested in sourcing the info. Also, this certainly isn't listcruft since the information would certainly be appropriate to merge into the main article on Vogue if there weren't a 125 years of covers to consider. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Imagine saying "you aren't interested in sourcing the info" to someone who has spent 3 years making articles about fashion models.... But it's not like you will do it. Trillfendi (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep (procedural), this is ridiculous, 22 articles bundled together for deletion!, lets say 5minutes each to check for sources, thats about 1hour 45mins, suggest this is closed and the nominator can bundle a more manageable number, hows 6 per afd? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, oh, and another thing can the nominator please direct editors to the part of WP:AFD that has "have to go to hell" as a reason for deletion? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Amazing how one little grammatical typo and a lack of autocapitalization can take something so simple completely out of context. Clearly, I was referring to the other articles needing deletion just like Vogue Portugal one, I forgot the extra o in too; one of the definitions of hell is an exclamation used for emphasis. This website isn’t serious enough for me to resort to telling people to "go to hell." Trillfendi (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * oh, sorry, reminds me of Eats, Shoots & Leaves:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, there is the book Paris Vogue Covers, 1920-2009 (library holdings here) which looks like a good WP:LISTN source for List of Vogue Paris cover models(?) Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That still leaves an entire decade out. Trillfendi (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources provided by the IP editor and Coolabahapple. The fact that one source only covers up to a decade ago does not matter - it shows that Vogue covers are notable as a topic. I'm not going to try to check and comment on all these nominations individually - it's a ridiculous number. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I gotdamn sure wasn’t going to be sitting here the whole rest of the 22 weeks left in this year AFding each article individually when they all have the same problem. All Vogue covers are not notable just for being Vogue covers. All Friends episodes aren't notable. Typically the only consistently "notable" occasions are who is on the September issue. Anyone who pays attention to fashion is aware of that, realistically. These articles don’t even take "special" issues (e.g. Imaan Hammam’s "third" Vogue cover, Kendall Jenner's subscription only cover) or things such as Vogue Italia Beauty issues into account. As it is, the American Vogue article points out particularly notable covers over the past 127 years and it’s evidently best left at that. At this point "cover models" is a misnomer because they stopped regularly putting actual models on the cover 20 years ago, and that’s well known; as clear as when MTV stopped playing music videos regularly. In this decade, only 11 or 12 issues have had models on the cover. That amounts to only 10%. The fallacy that they should be "kept" simply because of the Vogue name doesn't cut it. The persistent problem is the original research and lack of reliable sources for each article. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per RebeccaGreen. Bookscale (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Aren't the Vogue Archive's enough to source at least the US Vogue covers? I am not sure if they cover other countries.. Vogue may not be the bible it once was but for 100+ years it had huge circulation and was considered the defacto guide for fashion. Plus their circulation numbers plus the fact before the internet they sat on every shelf in every store and supermarket for virtually everyone in the country to look at. I already voted but it looks like several people have provided ways to source the info. I would think if you know the month and year you could also probably find a photo to source virtually any vogue cover worldwide through google or even ebay. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * eBay? A place to buy used stuff? Wow, nothing shocks me anymore. The Vogue archive may give you a few little snippets of what was in the magazine (not the main article of course) but the photographers are still being left out here. And every market of Vogue doesn't have a public archive, most Vogues except perhaps the Big Four don't even have the clout or capital to have that. US Vogue didn't even start putting fashion model's names on the covers until, what, that one off issue in 1999, and the Vogues that do put models on the cover still don't, so we're supposed to go off public's possible recognition? That ain't it. Trillfendi (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi I just went to the Vogue archives and it is every page of every issue dating all the way back to 1892. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AFFILIATE, "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available." It doesn't say they're not allowed! RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All I’m saying is if someone would have to resort to eBay that’s a red flag. Trillfendi (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it's silly, but not for the same reason; it's more like citing "the library" just because that's where you happened to find a book. Just cite the book. The magazine itself is a reliable source for its own content. No one cares how you found a copy of an issue, and online convenience links that reproduce print material are just that, a convenience; they are not what you are really citing. postdlf (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, all of it amounts to LISTCRUFT. Every cover of every Vogue in every market isn’t in itself notable. All of the major contributors to these pages are red link amateurs and IP users who don’t know what they’re doing, some have been banned, and have no regard for policy. This is what happens when anyone can make an article. Frankly, I’m starting to believe sockpuppetry is at work here. List of Vogue Hong Kong cover models was rejected in the AfC in April (Vogue Hong Kong doesn’t have an article either) and wasn’t going to be fruitful edition to the encyclopedia anyway; let alone it wasn’t even half done and it was "undersourced", therefore a page reviewer moved it back to the draft space for that reason. And even worse, a duplicate called Draft:List of Vogue HongKong cover models 2 was created after Draft:List of Vogue Hong Kong cover models 2 was deleted. My God. Burn it down. Trillfendi (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.