Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Dani (Unknown nomination)

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. Sandstein (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francesca Dani

Francesca Dani (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Recognition is weak outside of cosplay, and contributions/notability within cosplay is suspect as per WP:BIO (what has she done that no other person within her field has ever done?). Poorly cited. All references are of an autobiographical nature (mainly interviews or info on her own page). Additionally, subject in question has edited this page which is in violation of WP:COI. There have been several honest attempts to salvage this entry in the past two years in deference to WP policy, but does not seem possible given currently available data (ie. aforementioned autobiographical citations don't count). Kensuke Aida 17:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep is the subject of multiple secondary independent sources [1] [2][3] [4]. Referred to as the "most famous Italian Cosplayer in Brazil" here. Was even interviewed and profiled by the extremely popular Maxim Magazine which called her "The most popular cosplayer on the web!" [5]. Cosplay is a major and enourmously popular genre, especially in Japan, Brazil and Europe. Notability in the Costplay world is very notable (not liking independent secondary Cosplay references is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT). This person even has notability outside it. --Oakshade 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

All of your sources still consist mainly of interviews and are therefore autobiographical in nature. Many of your citations link to her page. Are there any impartial news stories about her that aren't interviews? Maxim magazine? Where? On her page? Primary source. Doesn't count. Notability outside of cosplay? In what way? Also, please justify multiple WP:COI edits made by her and (possibly) her fiancée. Kensuke Aida 18:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic. Because the demonstration that she was featured in Maxim Magazine is linked from the subject's website magically means she wasn't featured by Maxim Magazine? (I can't believe I actually had to ask that.) Maxim Magzine is not a cosplay oriented magazine and therefore demonstrates notability outside of Cosplay, which is still unnecessary to demonstrate notability. As for these interviews, that such a large number of secondary independent sources interviewed her is in fact further demonstration of notability. If they were her self published works you would have a valid point, but these are independent of her, from all over the world in multiple languages to boot. --Oakshade 18:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the subject having made edits to the page, you seem to be under the false impression that means an article must be deleted. If a subject is notable and has been the subject of mulitple secondary independent sources, a subject making edits doesn't in any way negate that. The notable authors Kim Ponders and Barbara Biggs made multiple edits to there own articles and misguided editors tried to the delete them for the same reasons (obviously they were kept). It was even reported internationally that John Howard's staff made editits to his article. Care to AfD that one? --Oakshade 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A proper citation of her Maxim magazine coverage would go a long ways towards addressing my concern (volume, issue, page, relevance?). But more to a point, an interview is barely removed from a primary source, since the person is largely talking about themselves and the interviewer basically acts as a publisher. NPOV issues abound. Nor are any of your citations matched up to text in the body of the article. Ergo, the heading of "References" is inappropriate. What do they reference? Also, your "secondary independent sources" are all fanzines. Maxim? Okay, I'll give you that one. That's ONE extremely notable secondary source, but you still run into the problem of it being a interview rather than a story trying for any sort of impartiality, and it's NOT in the article right now. And finally, you run into the WP:BIO problem in that you haven't established something that illustrates her notability WITHIN her field other than the fact that some fan elements like her. There are probably over 9000 cosplayers who have been interviewed as well, but I don't see people falling over each other to add them to WP (knock on wood). Some of these issues might be corrected via additional editing, but I'm kinda doubtful given the fact that this article has been up for at least two years now and previously deleted. As for the WP:COI, I'm simply pointing out that the article's impartiality has been further tainted. It is most definitely not the primary reason for the AfD request. Kensuke Aida 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That she was featured and interviewed so extensively by all of these Cosplay magazines (many more than are listed in this article, btw) in addition to Maxim Magazine demonstrates notability in the extremely popular Cosplay genre. 9000 Cosplayers don't have the coverage this Cosplay celebrity has received. As far as I can tell, hardly any Cosplayers (if any) have been interviewed and featured so much as this person has. --Oakshade 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone supplied the Maxim' volume, issue and pages) --Oakshade 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I can almost certainly find material to dispute that. Run a search for "Yaya Han" or "Alisa-Chan" (this was even brought up in the main discussion page). But somehow I think that I would be wasting my time to do so. Since you haven't made a claim in this article that she's the "most interviewed" or "most popular" cosplayer, I'm content to simply reiterate the point that she's no more notable than many of her peers. Kensuke Aida 19:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Weak Keep as nom. Kensuke Aida 19:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• As you are the nominator, be careful to not look like you're voting twice.--Oakshade 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. Nothing was bolded in the nomination paragraph. I decided to do it here for easy reading when the admins come by to establish consensus. They only need to glance over the bolded parts (or at least that's the way I understand it). Kensuke Aida 19:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you changing "delete, as nom" instead of "delete as per above." Not that they should really be counting votes anyway. --Cheeser1 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Request granted. Thanks. Kensuke Aida 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE: After considering the issue further, I'm officially changing my vote to "weak keep" based largely in part to the properly cited inclusion of the Maxim article. I'd like the record to reflect that that this was not in the article when I put this up for AfD. A major publication such as Maxim carries a lot more weight than fanzines with interviews in them. --Kensuke Aida (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. All sources appear to be self-published cosplay sites or related forums/zines/etc. I sort of feel like cosplay models should have standards analogous to say, WP:PORNBIO (if not just applying WP:BIO generally). I see very little indication that this model is notable - there are thousands and thousands of models, and cosplay isn't a very center-of-attention thing. One alleged appearance in Maxim may be interesting, but I mean, there are thousands of models that appear in one of the hundreds of fashion magazines or other magazines constantly. Not all of them are notable and not all of them have articles and that's certainly sensible. Appearing in Maxim is only one event. --Cheeser1 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Cosplay magazines are secondary sources independent of the subject. There are so many of them because Cosplay is extremely popular. Cosplay isn't porn; WP:PORNBIO doesn't apply. --Oakshade 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, in Ms. Dani's case an argument could be made that some of her cosplay photoshoots would qualify under the published Wikipedia definitions of softcore or erotica. So I wouldn't dismiss WP:PORNBIO out of hand. But that's beside the point of my AfD nom. I shall stick to WP:BIO. WP:BIO states that the secondary sources must also be "intellectually independent". I still fail to see how you're going to swing that here. The majority, if not the entirety of them are of HER TALKING ABOUT HER. That's not "intellectually independent" by any stretch of the imagination. That's the publication in question acting as her mouthpiece. And calling the items which you've included in "further reading" magazines is generous. Many of them appear to be fanzines. Maxim is the only thing that seems to remotely qualify as "mainstream press". Kensuke Aida 04:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• One, several of the publications about her are not interviews. Two, the ones that are interviews are secondary independent coverage (the magazines are publishing interviews by them of her, not interviews by her of herself). BEING INTERVIEWED BY SECONDARY INDEPENDENT SOURCES IS IN FACT BEING THE SUBJECT OF INDEPENDENT SECONDARY SOURCES. That these secondary independent sources had interviews of her demonstrates further notability. Three, most of those interviews includes non-interview introductions, sometimes in-depth, that are not interviews. As for WP:PORNBIO, some of Angelina Jolie's work can be considered porn in nature, but a majority of her work, as with this person, is not porn. --Oakshade 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Those are not "publications" - they are self-published fan sites/zines/etc. Totally irrelevant, and mirrors the neglected conflict of interest that has been noted. --Cheeser1 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• These are not "self published" works. Since you decided to reiterate this false claim a 2nd time up in this discussion, I'll refer you to the responses to your "self publications" claim below so readers don't have to suffer through an entire discussion a 2nd time. --Oakshade 18:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Try the dictionary: analogous. WP:BIO still applies, and this article fails. --Cheeser1 04:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• This subject easily passes. WP:BIO1E ("People notable only for one event") doesn't apply in the slightest as this notable artist has continued activity (don't know where you get "one event" from) and coverage by multiple independent sources over several years. --Oakshade 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• She appeared as a model in Maxim Mexico once. That's one event. You are concluding notability on this basis. Thousands of models appear in thousands of magazines every month. This is not notability. --Cheeser1 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be very confused as what the term "event" WP:BIO1E is referring to. That guideline is about not having articles about a person who was in the news for one particular story, ie, "Oshkosh Man Accidentally Shoots Own Hand". This person's notability is based on her celebrity status and being the subject of multiple secondary independent published works because of her ongoing celebrity status, not just your strange assertion of "one event." --Oakshade 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please read my argument. She appeared in a magazine as a model. She is a professional model. How is this notable? Also, I find it funny that you say "multiple independent secondary sources." So far, we have a single source that is independent/secondary. No, fansite interviews are neither secondary nor reliable, and the only "source" you have is an appearance as a model in a men's magazine. Once again - this doesn't establish notability. --Cheeser1 07:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• She appeared in multiple magazines/fanzines as a model and is very notable in the Cosplay genre (which includes shows and other events outside of magazines). The mulitple Coslplay genre magazines are in fact independent secondary sources. You might not like Cosplay nor the magazines that cater to its audience, but that's purely your WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion. Not every model is the subject of multiple secondary independent sources like this one is. --Oakshade 07:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• You need to reread WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Saying (correctly) that these fanzines are all self-published and not reliable is not an "I don't like it" assertion. The IDONTLIKEIT guideline states that one should not vote "Delete this because I hate cosplay" which is clearly not what anyone is asserting. --Cheeser1 07:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• You don't like the independent cosplay magazines that have published works about this person. I don't know where you get this "self-published" charge from as none of these publications are published by the article subject. They're mostly Brazilian publications (many more not listed in the article are Japanese) and most of them even credit a reporter. --Oakshade 08:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Due to your refusal to read or understand WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and the fact that it has nothing to do with WP:RS), I will no longer respond to this ludicrous accusation. These are not reliable sources. They are fansites and "interviews" by "reporters." None of these appear to be reliable publications of any sort. The best you can do is an appearance by a model as a model in a magazine full of models. Not notable. I have nothing to add in response, and you seem to have nothing meaningful/relevant/correct to add, so I won't be responding further. --Cheeser1 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Only responding to these non-sensical arguments you're throwing up like the "self-publshed" charge of the cosplay magazines. (You've learned that Editora JBC is in fact owned by Francesca Dani?). They're independent secondary sources that wrote about and/or interviewed this article subject. --Oakshade 08:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, I am not responsible with your inability to comprehend policy. Self-published does not mean published BY HER, it means published by whoever, as a fanzine or otherwise unreliable source. Please read up before dragging us down another uninformed tangent. --Cheeser1 08:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Glad you clarified that these multiple magazines from all over the world that have written published works about Francesca Dani are not published by her. Most of them are in fact print publications (Editora JBC for example), not anything like blogs or whatnot, which I guess is what you're charging at this point. --Oakshade 08:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Every single source on that page takes us to a fan-oriented website or forum about cosplay. That is not journalism and nothing cited on that page constitutes a reliable source. If you don't want to admit that fine, but I'm done explaining policy to you if you refuse to listen. --Cheeser1 08:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• You're only making the false claim that Editora JBC and all the other cosplay publications are "self published". Browsing the Francesca Dani media page, there's links to over 20 print publications and none of them, as well on on the WP page, appear of the "self publish" variety. Cosplay magazines aren't exactly Time-Warner publications, but these are not "self published" either. (by the way, i thought you said you weren't responding).--Oakshade 08:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• If I could just interject here for a moment: I think it's extremely foolish to use her own bibliography for anything. Least of all in establishing notability. I don't particularly agree as to the notability or intellectual independence of many of the sources that have been referenced here, but concede that linking directly to them in an "Additional Reading" section is preferable to just linking directly to a pages on her site. If this AfD fails, I will be happy in knowing that I at least lit a fire under people's you-know-what to start adding some semblance of proper citation (ie. IDotA's addition of the Maxim article with a proper footnote was a big step in the right direction). Proper footnote linking should still be provided in the "Personal Life" and "Career" section, otherwise you can expect a number of "citation needed" markers (that's not a threat, it's happened to articles I've written, and it caused me to correct the problem). Kensuke Aida 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• None of those, save the recent addition of Maxim Mexico featuring her as a model, are on the article. What's on the article? A bunch of links to things that are not printed publications. Forums, "articles" online, blogs, etc. Please also note that the reliability of a translation house does not make that which it translates a reliable source. They also translate manga, which is a primary/fictional source. We wouldn't be citing a Japanese-to-Portuguese manga to establish something's notability, would we? Furthermore, most of these sources can be, in no way shape or form, contextualized or properly regarded as reliable sources on this Wikipedia if they are non-notable cosplay magazines in languages other than English. Especially when all such sources are cherry-picked via a non-independent source. --Cheeser1 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Editors using only English language sources is one of the main reasons Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias was created. And sorry, but just because certain other independent published works that establish notability of a subject are not placed in an article does not magically mean those published works don't exist, it just means they're not placed in the article. --Oakshade 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think countering systemic bias means that you're supposed to make articles about every little subject that is of little note outside the US (Cosplay is popular in the US, but FranDan herself is less so). Note that the Spanish and Italian language Wikis do not have articles on her. The Portuguese one does, I'll give you that, but it doesn't take somebody highly fluent in Portuguese to see it's more or translated mirror of this article. And I'm sorry, but you're argument about saying that just because articles that establish notability are not in the article doesn't mean they don't exist is BS. As far as Wiki is concerned, they don't. Kensuke Aida 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Wonderful, and that's why it's your job to establish (incontrovertibly) that these are reliable sources, that they actually do provide any such notability, and that they are independent/meaningful regarding the subject of this article. I see no source that meets these criteria, and cherry picking someone's personal newsclippings of herself (on her own website or not) seems to be a huge problem, given the fact that she's editing her own article already too. --Cheeser1 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Being the subject of secondary published works establishes notability as all of these sources demonstrate ("cherry-picked" or not - don't know where you're going with that one.) You seem to be under the delusional impression that independent published works links from the topic's website somehow means those aren't independent published works. --Oakshade 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, in the case of the JPEG images you just linked to here (I eventually found what you were trying to link to by going into the image directory), they are exactly that: JPEG images of alleged articles hosted on her site. They are not the "independently published work" itself. Also might constitute copyright vio. Might even constitute forgery (doubtful, but can you ever really be 100% sure in the age of Photoshop?). Either way, I'm not terribly impressed. If you like I can whip up a JPEG scan of an article in Newsweek where the Pope declares me the most awesome human being ever and the second coming of Jesus Christ. Kensuke Aida 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• (Continuation of Discussion) Regarding the links of the print works from here, they're scans of independent published works. Just because they're links from her page doesn't change that. Quite a stretch to charge they're forgeries. There would be many lawsuits against Ms. Dani if they were, not to mention her work is extremely detailed and convincing (maybe she can do a convincing job with your Pope suggestion). --Oakshade 06:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Oakshade. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I've added a citation regarding her article in Maxim Mexico. --In Defense of the Artist 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Good addition. Kensuke Aida 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If she gets into porn, I'll reconsider my vote. ;) --Rev Prez 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a completely meaningless rationale to delete an article. --Oakshade 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It actually may be the most meaningful, but then again I am watching Life right now. To that end, I propose a new She Ain't In Porn Yet, Bitches Wikipedia guideline. --Rev Prez 03:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep First, I think she passes significant coverage even if largely due to raw tonnage vice quality of any particular source. Second, I'm going to apply common sense. If an American band can drive 50 miles to Vancouver British Columbia, get booed offstage and have a valid claim of notability due to a documented international tour (WP:Music cat 4), I'm inclined to think that someone with a track record of paid performances on multiple continents has a worthwhile claim. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) see belowHorrorshowj (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• You sort of lost me with the American band bit....--Kensuke Aida (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• He's making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument based on a hypothetical example. Which seems like some pretty flawed reasoning. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Kensuke I pretty unclear on that. Starting over, professional cosplayers would be considered entertainers or performers. If successfull, they perform for comparatively short durations at locations over a wide geographic area. 3-4 day run then off until the next competition or city. Which would make them more similar in terms of footprint to musicians than most other proffessions in the category. As WP:N says to apply common sense when dealing with notability, which is why I'm looking to the additional criteria for musicians for guidance in my decision. Cat 4 would allow a claim for a musician based on an international tour, documented by reliable sources. My point with the example is that some international tours are less impressive than others. In the case of this articles subject, she would have a pretty spectacular claim based on having multiple continents under her belt as a professional performer. Additionally, looking through the references, she won a competition at the World Cosplay Summit in Japan which involved surviving competions in Italy and Brazil prior to that if I understand them correctly. For a musician this should qualify under category 9 as a major competition. I that satisfying those standards to that degree amounts to a strong claim for notability. The subject already passd substantial coverage, so I don't think there's grounds for deletion.Horrorshowj (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2007 (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.