This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Fashion or clothing. It is one of many
deletion lists coordinated by
WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Fashion|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few
scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by
a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Fashion or clothing.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's
deletion policy and
WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Subject doesn’t seem to pass
WP:GNG. Does appearing on notable fashion platform calls for a Wikipedia page? Because we have so many people appearing on notable fashion platform but no independent reliable sources. Most of the source on the page just only talked about her appearing and nothing more.
Meligirl5 (
talk) 11:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I tried a search in .fr sites, and even then, we have only a few photo shoots that come up. "Muse of the Month"
[1] is about the extent of coverage I could find, it's simply a photospread and some small text. Delete for not meeting notability requirements and a lack of sourcing.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:CORP. One of plenty of tech accessory companies around the world; what makes this stand out as a more notable one than the rest?
B3251 (
talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Nothing has changed since last AfD. The current sources are enough to establish notability.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course things have changed since then. ORGCRIT has been tightend a lot since 2011 (I understand most people place the change around 2018) and while "puff piece" probably shouldn't (and wouldn't) have been a ringing endorsement even back then, the article in The Australian fails current standards for ORGIND by such a distance I struggle to imagine anyone who has actually read the article would think it complies with the current guidelines.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see how it fails ORGIND. Sure, it's a business column, but what else? Are you claiming that the writer invests in Gecko Gear?We already have three sources that pass NCORP.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see how it fails ORGIND... do you mean besides the fact it's almost entirely composed of quotes and paraphrases taken directly from what the company has to say? ORGIND has two parts.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Probably spent way too much time on this, but whatever. Not sure what the third source that passed NCORP was.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Look, it literally has 5 sentence-sized paragraphs related to the subject, none of which are not a quote, none of which are actually about the subject, plus one about a bag they make.
Besides being a
WP:CORPROUTINE announcement, what can we verify besides 1) they have one distribution deal, and 2) they are discussing other distribution deals? That they're celebrating?
–
Barker, Gary (28 Apr 2011) "Shape of Apples to come: mac man" The Age PQ 865591170
TWL
–
–
There's just nothing about the company here except a few quotes from Raymond (the director of the company)
–
I think that's about it, unless someone wants to start digging through the dead tree copies of the Australian MacWorld and stuff. I don't see the point frankly, I find it extremely unlikely there exists anything meeting ORGCRIT.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It appears to be a non-notable design school with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently cited sources are either passing mentions, school profiles, press releases, or paid brand posts, including a few unreliable ones. A Google News search for "Vogue Institute of Art and Design" and "Vogue Institute of Fashion Technology" yields nothing useful either. Therefore, it fails to meet
WP:CORPDEPTH imo.
GSS💬 15:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: As per my check, I also can’t find any reliable sources with in-depth covarage which can establish notability to this school. The subject fails
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.
GrabUp -
Talk 16:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The article cites trade publications and a Forbes contributor article. Some of the sources are about the person for interviews. I think this article is promotional and we need to demonstrate that it is notable per
WP:NCORP. A G11 by a previous reviewer was declined so I will leave this for the community to decide.
Lightburst (
talk) 17:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per good reliable sources and significant coverage in Elle, Vogue and local magazines and news papers. Added some sources --
Assirian cat (
talk) 08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
We have a few routine announcements and interviews or interest articles about the Ukrainian owner.
like this and
articles about the founder but I do not think we get to the kind of RS needed for a notable company.
I am happy to withdraw if I am wrong.
Lightburst (
talk) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP, nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. //
Timothy ::
talk 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The Forbes article is by a contributor but I see no evidence that the article is not independent. The National Jeweler and the mentions in articles in the New York Times should suffice as English language sources. Since I cannot read the Ukrainian source I am taking on faith that those are substantial.
Lamona (
talk) 02:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep in addition to the mentioned references I’m adding the following good sources with significant independent coverage. Here is a good long read in
KyivPost[2], a Space Magazine publication representing the jewellery industry showed the company in depth here pages 61-63
[3]. Also, here is a success story in the local top newspaper and TV channel
ICTV[4] and here is an in-depth coverage from the other local newspaper
[5] while here is the in-depth coverage from a business-oriented and highly reliable in Ukraine AIN.ua news site
[6]. Here is also a good coverage from Vogue in English
[7]. Also I’ve found a significant coverage in Polish version of Glamour
[8]. Also worth mentioning is Vogue Singapore
[9] and L’officiel Mexico
[10] --
Riva Pola97 (
talk) 17:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×☎ 13:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as per the Harvard magazine article and Union Leader newspaper article already in the article, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 19:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - While Harvard magazine and a single article in the Union Leader may be reliable for use in verifying facts, just those two citations together are insufficient for establishing notability. The two publications would appear to not have the circulation/audience necessary to demonstrate notability beyond a small region or special interest niche. The citations do not show that Hart and Shepard is anything close to a household name.
CapnPhantasm (
talk) 03:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - anything from that period that is even being discussed today in magazine articles is surely noteworthy. An additional source: the "famous Dorothy cloak" made by Hart and Shepard is
held by the Shaker Museum, and is discussed in Beverly Gordon's 1990 research paper
"Victorian Fancy Goods: Another Reappraisal of Shaker Material Culture". A different take is provided by Antiques and the Arts (
"Smalls Bring Big Prices At Willis Henry Shaker Sale" of 4 December 2007) which notes the high prices fetched by the cloaks. I am certain there are numerous other such sources that credibly establish the importance of this brand, back in its heyday. And "Once notable, always notable".
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply