Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Pucci


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ralph Pucci

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. (In spite of what some editors think - having sources is not the same as have good sources.) Being semi-famous is not a reason to have an article. red dogsix (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 23:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no need to delete the page. Ralph Pucci is quite noteable, and if you delete the page, people who want to find information about Ralph Pucci won't be able to. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a giant collection of knowledge? --Macaroniking (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a collection of everything, but rather a collection of notable things. That said, you are right, and the sources support it: he's very notable. 104.163.153.162 (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The evidence suggests that Ralph Pucci is a notable person. --Macaroniking (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep the nominator should try some WP:BEFORE next time. I added significant review/profile articles from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Architecture Digest. I agree that "having sources is not the same as have good sources.", however this article has good sources. I've added a lot of good references, and I might add that he has made a significant contribution to the field of mannequin design, thereby satisfying WP:ARTIST104.163.153.162 (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The coverage now cited in the article establishes notability. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Searched and found 2 reliable sources one from Huffington post and the other from NY Times. Passed WP:GNG.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:33, 19 January 2018 (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.