Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fashion/archive

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. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belfast Fashion Week

Belfast Fashion Week (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Perhaps an advert. But I'm fairly sure this event is non-notable. Pig^man 00:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources = original research. the_undertow ^talk 01:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources to back up notability claims. Nick Graves 01:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable regardless. -RiverHockey 17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 10:35, 26 October 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.

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. Maxim_(talk) 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Victoria's Secret fashion models

List of Victoria's Secret fashion models (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

content not verifiable in a reliable source Number1spygirl 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 04:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC) c'mon folks, doesn't anyone have an opinion on this? Carlossuarez46 04:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This is more of a cleanup issue, isn't it? Perhaps it would be best to tag it with {{unreferenced}} and keep an eye on it, at least for now. PC78 10:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's the problem - there are no refereces at all. I looked at the link to the Naomi Campbell Wikipedia page, and there is no mention of her modeling for Victoria's Secret. So the entire page is original research. If you tag it unreferenced and no one adds refereces, then what? MarkBul 16:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • If references aren't forthcoming, then bring the article back here and we can vote to delete, saying that we gave it a shot. But let's give cleanup a chance first, eh? This article gets plenty of traffic, so perhaps some of those users will be interested in addressing this problem if we draw their attention to it. I googled "naomi campbell" & "victoria's secret" and got 337,000 hits, so I can only assume that references are there to be found. PC78 22:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
      • How do you suggest we reference this, by pictures? Victoria's Secret has never released a roster of its modeling team except the 'Angels', the main models for Victoria's Secret. An example would be Cindy Crawford. Was she or was she not a model for Victoria's Secret? We can't tell, can we? Number1spygirl 01:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Of course we can, from a reliable independent source which confirms this as fact. PC78 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is merely an editing problem. DGG (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've added a couple references for a number of the models and an external link which also lists a number of them. It's a start and shows that the list can be improved, so should not be deleted. DHowell 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and DHowell - Bagel7^T's 07:37, 26 September 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.

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 no consensus. Close call, but Trident13 and Crazysuit make compelling arguments under WP:BIO. Very minor notability, but nobody appears to dispute wide name recognition.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nadine Baggott

Nadine Baggott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I believe that the article fails to assert the importance or significance of the subject.

Ms Baggott's principle "achievement" to date seems to have been a single award, in 2004, for thinking up a clever title for an edition of the british magazine Hello. The title was recognised by the jasmine awards, which seems to be specifically aimed at that subset of the advertising and marketing industry that writes about perfumes. This seems to be a small prize in a little pond!

Additionally, the article has dubious or unverifiable sources both for the age and birthplace of the subject, and contains other unverified information. I believe that if this information were removed, it would almost collapse into a list of links. Furthermore, the article frequently attracts vandalism. DMcMPO11AAUK 02:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I do not believe that NB meets any of the general notability criteria for people listed at WP:BIO with the possible exception of wide name recognition through stating her name during her appearance in TV adverts.
  If I tell enough people my name enough times am I famous?
  I also feel that NB does not meet any of the specific criteria for either television personalities or journalists. She has won a single award in what seems to be a very narrow field - namely "journalism about perfume". Moreover, the award appears to have been for the title of an article, rather than the article itself. I don't feel this single award is significant recognition of her work by her peers.
  If I think up a snazzy advertising slogan, is that notable?
  In summary, despite the rejection of my request for speedy deletion on the basis that she is "a notable person", I still contend that she is not in fact notable. The most notable thing about her is probably the amount of money expended by Olay to various TV companies in pushing her onto UK TV screens. DMcMPO11AAUK 02:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no attribution of notability to reliable sources. She has some name recognition, but the award is minor, and her position a notch below generally accepted levels of notability (e.g. the editor of a magazine, not an editor). --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: The article could also be seen as a 'vanity' article, possibly even written by NB herself.
  At times the article has been amended by people to show the general thoughts about her tv adverts. Some of these amendments were bound to be less than flattering but some were truthful. These seem to have mysteriously disapeared.
  If you are lucky enough to have a listing on here it should speak the truth...warts and all.
  For example see the 'Vanessa' page. 84.68.50.143 09:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: I'm unsure of the position of the above anonymous contributor, I've engineered his attribution from the edit history to clarify that it's not my comments, although it was inserted in the midst of them. DMcMPO11AAUK 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • Comment:(Im sorry that I edited your comments. This is the first time I have contributed to a page like this and was not aware my comments had to be separate to those of others. I thought it was ok to edit just the same as a normal page) HjDary.

• Keep. Several of the reasons given aren't enough for deletion, vandalism and unreferenced information is an editing issue. The suggestion that the article is "probably written by NB herself" is just silly. The article creator User:Trident13 is an editor with nearly 20,000 edits and is obviously not the subject. She hasn't really "done" anything to deserve her fame, but the TV adverts alone have made her one of the most well-known names (as opposed to people) in the UK, so she passes the WP:N standard for wide name recognition. Crazysuit 02:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: From WP:N - "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I would suggest that there are only three reliable secondary sources, an article in The Guardian that was critical of the current Olay advertising campaign, the Jasmine Awards website recording the 2004 soundbite "Scent to Seduce" award, and the IMDB entry. I don't consider the sum of those three sites to be significant coverage. I can't find any other source for material about Nadine that is both (a) independent of her or her employment and (b) reliable. I agree that she has widespread name recognition from the Olay advertising campaign, but is that enough to justify an article? DMcMPO11AAUK 08:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: I don't consider websites quoting Baggott's endorsement of various creams, potions, lotions and treatments to be reliable secondary sources either. It's just one advertisement quoting another one. They're not quoting her because they respect her authority on the subject, they're quoting her because her comments support their sales campaign! DMcMPO11AAUK 08:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The claimed notability seems not to be the absurdly minor award, but the controversy over her appearance in some advertisements that have attracted unfavorable comment in the blogosphere. I don't consider that encyclopedic notability. DGG (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There's a lot more notability than this - she's appeared on UK TV shows a few times such as "This Morning" also, and that's besides being in a few adverts. If this article is deleted, perhaps the other more minor articles people fight to keep can be thrown on the scrapheap also. LuciferMorgan 11:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: Her general notability is based on (a) journalistic articles, which have won her (b) one minor award in a small field, (c) occasional appearances as a television presenter, and (d) TV adverts and other product endorsements. She has some additional internet notability through the commentary that the adverts have attracted in the blogosphere. Bottom line - she is just a journalist who happens to write and talk about beauty products and treatments. Oops, I thought I signed this, deriving the correct sig from page history - DMcMPO11AAUK 16:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I originated the article, and I'd like to say now I'm NOT Nadine Baggott - I can't speak about some of the Anon's though who have "added" comments. I originally added an article because much as though I don't think she's the most wonderful or entertaining person in the world, a bit of investigation to me showed that she did pass WP:BIO on at least two counts: The person has demonstrable wide name recognition; Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products. I also don't particularly like editors "grooming" articles for deletion - before making your mind up on this one, have a look at the edit history. I will also add one more point - original version of the article has more references and seems closer to a better/more encyclopedic article: perhaps one of those unique articles which has deteriorated through co-operation; or just a refelction on her public view? Rgds, - Trident13 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: I'm not grooming anything for deletion. I've reverted vandalism on several occasions, removed inaccuracies both in the original article text (for example birthplace is not orpington, despite the reference which was a blogosphere discussion where someone asked "did she come from orpington?") (she states she was born in Isleworth); and that seem to have been added later (e.g. the assertion that she owns cats - she states that she doesn't). I've added a bio infobox in which I've placed only that information that is verifiably accurate, and I've endeavoured to ensure that all material on the page is from verifiable sources. The only verifiable information that I've removed is that she has done a commercial tv presenters course - I don't think it's appropriate in a bio to list short vocational courses that the subject has attended. I've discussed just about all of this on the article's talk page as I've done it. And I've done it because although I believe that the article should be deleted, I also believe that if the AfD fails, the article is now better laid out and more accurate than before I started on it. DMcMPO11AAUK 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: What "demonstrably notable products" does she endorse? As far as I can tell her endorsements are of a few face creams, potions, lotions and beauty treatments. I don't believe any of these products has achieved any particular notability in it's own right. Claiming notability with an argument that "person x is notable because she endorses product y, and product y is notable because it's endorsed by person x" just creates a loop linking person x and product y with the word notable in the middle, it's meaningless. DMcMPO11AAUK 08:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no notability and nothing of significance in article. NBeale 10:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve Multiple independent references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Extensive searching has failed to find any additional material, or even references for her date and place of birth - why don't you improve it? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete Not notable, original author apparently can't expand it. Mbisanz 01:54, 19 September 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.

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, with the prevalent reasoning being failure to meet notability threshold. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gravity Pope

Gravity Pope (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Clothing retailer of dubious notability. The article seems to be written almost entirely by a SPA (User:Nowayanthony) and by anonymous IPs; most of the contributions by established editors seem to be basic housekeeping or complaining about the advertising-like tone. Looks like a vanity article. —Psychonaut 21:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't seem to be a notable store, at least not yet. 13900 results on Google, but 13898 of them seem to be directories and yellow pages and whatnot. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Well, it's not a bad article and I'm sure it's a very nice store but at the end of the day, that's not what matters. I hardly even see an assertion of notability and there are no sources. It also does not appear to pass WP:CORP and the sources listed on the corporate 'About us' page all look rather trivial to me. This might make a very nice addition to the corporate Myspace site but I'm afraid it doesn't merit inclusion here. --S ^up? 22:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per lack of WP:RSs. Corpx 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- advertising for nn company. Open to recreation if they make "top100" status -- SockpuppetSamuelson 10:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• keep Gravity Pope may be a small company in the scheme of things, but it is an integral part of the communities in which it does business, with mention in the articles about the communities: Strathcona, Kitsilano, and 17th Avenue. The company is quite notable in western Canada. The article itself is meant to give fans and customers of the store access a resource of company information and history. Look at this blog and the comments below, people have used the page as a resource: [1]. I'm learning about wikipedia as I go, I've made a couple of minor edits on related articles, I don't feel confident or knowledgable enough to be doing lots of edits. I realize that I look like an SPA because the Gravity Pope article is kind of my baby on wikipedia and I've been trying to get it to conform to wikipedia policies, while learning how to create articles on wikipedia properly.Nowayanthony 17:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Joe's Eats may be an integral part of Podunk, USA, but that doesn't mean it's notable according to Wikipedia's standards. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to give "fans and customers" information about the store—that's what the store's own website should be doing—but rather to summarize independent published information about the store. —Psychonaut 23:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:24, 25 July 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.

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 No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Velvet D’Amour

Velvet D’Amour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was originally speedy-deleted as an A7. DRV overturned finding a claim to notability in the modeling work and film role. Weak delete, pending other opinions, given uncertainty over notability. Xoloz 15:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I just can't find anything of substance about her. Most sources which mention her do so only incidentally or in passing, and are substantially about something else (a fashion show, a movie). The vast majority of material is also on blogs or otherwise unreliable. I just don't see that there's enough information out there to write a biography. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It seems that lots of newspapers wrote about her. Yes we are struggling to get info to write a full biography-but that is no reason to delete. According to this [2] there were multiple newspapers writing about her. I think she is notable by wikipedia definition. Obina 16:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep due to title role in Avida. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, within the topic of plus-size models' she is very notable, and given the very real and widespread international media attention this woman continues to receive after her catwalk appearances she definitely has merit. Respondants to this AfD who do not regularly monitor fashion media will likely discount her impact on the fashion industry but it cannot be denied; D'Amour is the largest woman to have ever appeared during a Paris fashion showing, and this at the height of the 'model health debate'. Prevalence of blogs talking about this woman and reposting existing media interviews and television appearances implies that she has high impact in current popular culture AntiVanity 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete - insufficient reliable sources. I suspect she may gain notability in the future if her career continues, but not right now. -- Whpq 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Seems to be notable.

¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not yet notable. 209.247.22.130 02:21, 8 July 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.