Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Roy

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. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 08:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Roy

New York fashion designer. This article has been tagged with notability and speedy tags throughout its existence, so I think it's time to get community consensus on this. I'm withholding judgment for now, pending new resources (other than than the ubiquitous Fashionweekdaily links). trialsanderrors 07:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There are 555 unique Google hits (that's a lot) of pretty good quality. She seems to be a known designer. Pages like this one confirm the impression that she is known / talked about by others, which is all we need. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, that's a blog. Google News has 24 listings, mostly about people wearing her outfit. This one is somewhat about her (and 3 other designers). ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Right. I am not suggesting it's the New York Times. But it is evidence that people know/care who she is, which suggests she is notable in her field. There aren't a lot of Realiable Sources about deisgners of this kind, so we have to do with what we've got. - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - An apparent (if passing) Vogue mention is good enough for me. Crystallina 11:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Disputable borderline notability as a fashion designer (too early to tell much more once you cut through the PR-buzz efforts.... I'm not sure what a 2006 Bollywood fashion award for "Outstanding Contribution to American Fashion"[1] (for a designer who launched her first collection in 2005 and has dressed a British girl band of questionable notability[2])actually means? I don't see what her clothes have to do with Bollywood either, in style or association, apart from the very weak connection that she's half-Indian in ethnicity (and Bollywood doesn't represent all of India anyway). Is the Vogue editor meeting Roy just for her own sake, or partly or mainly due to Roy's husband?) but add in her borderline notability as socialite/wife of notable guy, and I guess there's enough for a weak keep. Article needs rewrite/editing to purge the PR copy though. If others come up with reasonable delete arguments, I'm probably an easy pushover to the other side.Bwithh 14:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has a reasoonable profile on Google News Archive including an article from 2004 titled "Rachel Roy's on a roll" from Women's Wear Daily. [3] She is married to hip-hop entrepreneur Damon Dash so her article could be merged with his but for mine, she is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I believe this article is a self-advert, and though it's speculation, seems to me like someone was paid to write the article. Pay attention for clues on the images, as well as some portions of the text.--Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 16:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, its clearly a PR exercise, and needs purging of content if kept. Images are okay - a lot of images on wikipedia are PR shots. Bwithh 19:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Painful Keep. Clearly a vanity article, and disingenuous in classic PR fashion. (The Vogue editor is mentioned only as "one of the few invited" to the "intimate showing," which strongly suggests that she never went to it, and that almost no one else showed up either. Note that there is no mention in Vogue, brief or otherwise.) Plus, the sources are breathless fashion publications reprinting press releases. And yet, it satisfies the minimum requirements.Auto movil 17:00, 27 October 2006 (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.