Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Allegra

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. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Allegra[edit]

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

It appears to be too soon for Wikipedia to have an article about this photographer. Whilst her work has been featured in a number of publications, very little has been written about her, and nothing at all in reliable sources. She may well meet the appropriate notability criteria one day, but that day isn't today. Please see the article's talkpage for an ongoing discussion of sources. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. What's currently an (or the?) apparent highlight within the article is Her work has been featured on the website of Vogue Italia (my emphasis), with a reference to vogue.it. But look at the reference -- {{cite web|url=http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Profilo/79d652d7-f94e-4be8-b1ee-a51d20ef3f2e/User/// |title=Vogue Italia - Profilo Sarah Allegra |publisher= vogue.it|date= |accessdate=2014-01-04}} -- and one sees that the URL includes the string "User". What can all this about? PhotoVogue's "How does it work" (linked from that page; and conveniently for many of us, in English) explains. Creating and building such a page doesn't sound difficult. True, the "How does it work" page does say that of all the photos so uploaded, The best ones will be shown on a daily basis on PhotoVogue’s home page and the best three will be also published in the magazine. Now, this might qualify as "be featured" as I understand the verb feature, but the WP article doesn't suggest that this has happened for the biographee. ¶ The arts world has tens of thousands of "emerging" artists. Some will emerge, some will not; before they emerge, Wikipedia articles such as this (and there are too many) that depend on grandiose descriptions of commendable but minor achievements are minimally informative, risk embarrassing debunkings, and really are of no help to the biographees. -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per proposer and Hoary. Admiral Caius (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:51, 17 January 2014 (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.