Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelica Colucci

Angelica Colucci

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NBIO. This looks like an effort specifically to create a promotional articles. Almost all the refs are misleading, mentioning her employer (Ozwald Boateng) but not her. The few that do mention her are very minor or mostly quotations. Lack of in-depth independent coverage. MB 02:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Canada. MB 02:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While she does seem to have done some stuff, we have no sources to support it. The entire start of the carreer section is (apparently) sourced to this, which does not mention Colucci at all. The only references actually talking about her (still not in-depth) are the Forbes subsite ones, which Headbomb's script identifies as only borderline reliable. The Fashionista & Esquire refs again do not seem to mention Colucci at all – nominator is right, this is very misleading. An editor might have known more than the sources say, but then it's WP:OR. Nothing else to be found, so delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous assessment (ugh why are we doing this again?!) and the fact that it's nothing more than paid for, non-notable vanity spam. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see how it meets WP:GNG. As mentioned by the nom, some of the refs in the article don't even mention her, but as per WP:NEXIST that doesn't overly matter here. I couldn't find any independant sources with much more than a passing mention. There's a little bit of coverage at https://www.forbes.com/sites/joanneshurvell/2016/09/28/women-who-dress-men-female-menswear-designers/?sh=5d454baa2dae but that's not sufficient to show notability. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed those from the articles. I'm not sure what point you're making with WP:NEXIST as it doesn't make sense in this context (though I agree she isn't notable.) Please read WP:FORBESCON though, because those sources are pretty useless. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned WP:NEXIST as the nom referred to refs that were currently in the article. Good point about WP:FORBESCON, as it further strengthens the argument to delete. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the coverage she has is not significant. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]