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. SpinningSpark 06:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Edmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Being Fashion Editor of Harpers Bazaar is, in itself, not sufficient justification for a lengthy Wikipedia entry, in my view. I can't find any reliable evidence to back up the claim that she's "one of the best known celebrity stylists". If the Times article (behind a paywall and currently unidentifiable) is substantially about her it may not be enough to convince me she meets WP:GNG requirements. Sionk (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Harper's Bazaar is a pretty major publication. There is a precedent for articles on editors of notable magazines, although this may mainly be more for overall editors than for sub-editors. Under her tenure, the UK Harper's Bazaar was renamed from Harper & Queen, a major rebranding which is significant in terms of the magazine's history. I am pretty sure the sources are out there, and will look around. On the face of it, this is someone who sounds like she ought to pass notability. Mabalu (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, if she was the Editor I'd find better things to do. But she wasn't, while noone has found additional sources after two years. Sionk (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus [1] looks at first glance like a non-RS blog, but probing around, it appears to be a brand consultancy that specialises in professional women and promoting their work (and has been around a while, I found info on events they organised in Canada in 2008). I suspect there are probably quite a number of reliable sources that aren't readily available online for this lady - she's had a very impressive, long-running career and co-workers/colleagues (including Anna Wintour and Liz Tilberis) and is clearly highly respected in her field. Being a fashion editor for UK Vogue is pretty significant given that the magazine is focused on fashion. To people in the biz, she is clearly someone to know, although this is not always translated effectively into the wider world. I cannot support a delete vote in good faith for this reason, which is frustrating because we have kept arguably undeserving subjects due to technical notability, yet someone like Alison Edmond, who I am 100% sure would be notable if only she had a decent press agent keeping track of her published articles/interviews/features/press, is tricky to prove notability for. This is why my vote is a no consensus - personally, I want to keep the article, but I cannot support a keep vote, and there is no way that I can in good faith vote delete. Mabalu (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for utter lack of WP:RS to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The main editor of this magazine might be notable, but I doubt if the section editors are. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Harper's Bazaar, could even merge the lead paragraph. J04n(talk page) 10:09, 1 April 2013 (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.