Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have appeared on the cover of all "Big Four" editions of Vogue

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 delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have appeared on the cover of all "Big Four" editions of Vogue

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

No sources discuss the topic of this list. The inclusion of people on this list is based on searching of lists of either one of these 4 Vogue editions. Pure original research. Randykitty (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not really sure why this is significant, seems a very weirdly specific thing to have a list for, and probably more fancruft/original research. Probably something to cite on the main Vogue webpage, but seems silly to have a spin-off for this. Mabalu (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no allegation of why this might be notable or even important to our core readership - thus failing WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From a homosexual who sometimes pays attention to this trivial fashion stuff. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This does seem to pass WP:NLIST and WP:BLPLIST in that every single person except one is notable . And the act of appearing on Vogue cover is also certainly notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Except that the selection of who to include on this list is pure original research and that there are no sources discussing the topic of this list... --Randykitty (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that whoever appears on a Vogue cover is not disputable. Also, the editions known as Big Four seems to be universally recognized, although I will admit I had a hard time finding info on the Big Four as a classification.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

possibly keep Just as counting is not OR, comparing several lists and selecting those items found on all of them is not OR. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete the grouping by "big four" is clearly WP:OR. Why not the big five and include Spain? For non-OR groupings we have List of Vogue cover models. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The issue here is not whether the people on the list are notable. The issue is that the concept of the "big four" Vogues is clearly an opinion being passed as fact. You will not find any mention of the "big four" Vogues on any of the Vogue websites. This concept is not notable for an encyclopedia article. Lupine453 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non encyclopedic topic & quite trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2016 (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.