Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fashion

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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fashion or clothing. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fashion/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Fashion

Hill House Home

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

No evidence of any notability. Any significance seems to centre around a single garment that was popular during the Covid pandemic. Searches reveal very little of worth about the article subject, but more about the garment. Sources are very weak. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets notability guidelines. Widespread coverage for years in major news sources. Hard to understand the deletion rationale. Did the nominator make an effort to find sources before nominating? Thriley (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A quick Google search in the news sections shows a decent amount of coverage about the dress the business made, but not really the business itself. My recommended action would be to assess the nap dress's notability first, since that's what this article seems to hinge on for its validation of existence. If the dress can be deemed notable enough, then it could be included in a relevant section of, I dunno... 2020s in fashion? If the dress isn't notable, then the article about the business itself doesn't really have a leg to stand on. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you explain more on your claim that the fashion store/brand is lacking in notability? While there is certainly a ton of news coverage of their Nap Dress product that made them big in 2020, there also continues to be significant coverage of them since, with that coverage focusing on what the company has expanded into beyond just that product, including plenty of news covering their physical expansion over the years as well. Some examples:

I'm seeing extended and ongoing coverage showcasing their notability as a store, fairly consistently having articles about them in both major newspapers and fashion and business magazines. If anything, the coverage has been increasing in the past two years as compared to earlier. Silver seren^C 04:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six5Six

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine announcements and churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Sports, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton, Cricket, Cycling, Football, Sport of athletics, Tennis, Delhi, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquae Jewels

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. Sourced to promo pieces/advertorials. KH-1 (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klevisa Ymeri

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

Putting this up for the community to judge. This was nominated as an attack page; I don't think it's really that, given that all these negative points seem well-verified, but I am wondering if this rises to the required level of notability for someone who, apparently, is noteworthy only for negative things. Drmies (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a encyclopedia not a news media. It should not contact articles about private individuals. For that open a news website and fill it with entries similar to it. Do you want to feed all the Wikipedia with recent news. Car accidents happen every minute everywhere around the world. Please know what this page is about. Due to some of you people, this website has become the most unreliable and the least scientific as it was years before, when only scientific or intelectual content was present. 146.0.16.235 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we have coverage about cat memes, so this isn't necessarily the case. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we shouldn't have this article, but it never had only "scientific or intelectual [sic] content". PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see much coverage from before this last incident. Plenty of coverage about the accident, but I don't it meets criminal notability. She doesn't appear to have had much coverage otherwise; typical "pretty girl does stuff online" photospreads and brief mentions, which might help sell magazines/get website clicks, but don't rise to our level of notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Crime, Travel and tourism, Fashion, Internet, and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sufficient notability. The only thing she has appeared in the media for is the accident, which itself is not enough to justify an article. As for her social media presence, there are zillions with a larger followers base that do not have an article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page was CSD tagged under G10 - as there's an ongoing AfD discussion and the negative information is sourced, I've removed the tag (I did say A10 in my edit summary, I meant G10). - Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not criminally notable, or notable as an internet celebrity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phytocosmetics

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

Is there any reason that this should not be a sentence in cosmetics and an entry on Wiktionary?

It is likely to remain a source of stealth advertising and OR. Qwirkle (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Reference 1 looks non-RS (I don't read Portuguese, but the page layout is not encouraging); the other references appear to be bogus or at the very least improperly cited and formatted. There are real sources on the subject out there: [1], [2], [3], but they're swamped out by SEO garbage and sites trying to sell something, and it would take work and a discerning eye to write a good article on the topic, and this one isn't good. The topic may be significant but the article needs far too much work to keep as is. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose draftify. There is no point to draftifying a seven year old article! No one ever works on draftified articles for old ones. No one. I haven't searched for sources, but this seems like a hard topic to write a full article on. Maybe worth a mention somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well, there's 3 hits in Gscholar directly talking about it, [4], [5], [6]. I thought we were discussing deletion, I mean draft if you want, but it's a notable topic. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A notable topic need not have its own article. Qwirkle (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No inline sources, what is there is poor at best, there's 3 hits in Gscholar is not a reason for a stand-alone article, and also WP:TNT on the article in its present form. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 08:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article is terrible and I think there is an excellent case for TNTing any article where no one has bothered to explain what the subject even is over the course of years. But that is not the deletion policy. Sources don't have to be in an article to show it is notable, they only need to be shown to exist. Phytochemistry is a thing, and phytocosmetics are a suitably large part of that subject that they spawn multiple textbooks. E.g. Botanicals: A Phytocosmetic Desk Reference (1998) or Phytocosmetics and Cosmetic Science (2021). This is not a delete. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion, but otherwise I'd support it. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, we don't have to give this subject its own page. Is there a case for merging with Phytochemistry? All we really have beyond phytochemistry is the dictionary definition: phytocosmetics is concerned with the cosmetic properties of botanicals. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add a sentence or two to cosmetics per nom. Definitely do not redirect or merge to phytochemistry, that is very different. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PimComedy Fashion Show

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

References are event listings and non-rs entries. Fails WP:SIGCOV. A before virtually nothing. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and New York. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Poetry, Music, Entertainment, Events, and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Lipa

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

The subject fails to meet WP:GNG on their own merit and is only notable due to being the sister of a notable person, as evidenced by all available references primarily focusing on her relationship to her sister. And WP:INVALIDBIO explicitly state That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks like a failure to perform a BEFORE. I'm finding substantial references that are about Rina, not her older sister (Vogue, Deadline). Also, the sources present are not primarily focusing on Rina's relationship with her sister, but instead mention it as a considerable detail. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Vogue and Deadline have articles about Rina, but even the headlines in both pieces emphasize her relationship to Dua Lipa, which suggests that her notability is primarily tied to her sister. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read past the headline, per WP:HEADLINES. There is SIGCOV of her as a fashion model and actor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary reason she received coverage is due to her relationship with Dua Lipa, as even Vogue pointed out by stating, She’s self-aware about the nepo-sibling thing. Also, the lead describes her as a model, actress, and dancer, this means the article should also meet WP:ARTIST and WP:NMODEL requirements, both of which she falls short of meeting. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s enough if she meets GNG, which she does. A subject meeting GNG does NOT have to meet particular requirements of SNGs. That would be absurd. The articles (some on the page and plenty more available online) mention her sister but focus on her and constitute significant coverage addressing Rina directly and in depth, in reliable media outlets, which is precisely what is required. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Dua Lipa. There isn't much coverage of her as someone other than Dua's sister. Frost 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: given the existing coverage; a redirect to Dua Lipa#Early life is totally warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Albania. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per arguments presented above. -AlexBachmann (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stumbled upon this article as I was deleting articles created by a sockpuppet of Asphonixm but I see the article is being improved and is the subject of this discussion. But if it wasn't being worked on, it would likely be eligible for a CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: If we compare the state of the article since it was last edited by the sock and after the involvement of multiple editors, I do not see any substantial edits made on the article. The changes made so far seem to include removal of maintenance tags, fixing minor errors like references, paraphrasing sentences, switching "British" to "English", and adding categories—none of which amount to substantial content contributions. Therefore, Asphonixm's sock remains the major contributor. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who added sources to the page (yesterday, I think) and I am sorry but it was a significant change. I did it to prove she meets GNG. Who is the "major contributor" is not what matters, what matters is whether there is/are (a) "significantly edit"(s) by other user(s). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see Liz suggest CSD 5 eligibility extended until recently in the face of demonstrative notability and involvement of other editors (myself included) well before the sock was caught. Mushy Yank has made such substantial edits in the last 48 hours that I wonder if Ckfasdf believes that a sock only needs to be a majority contributor for CSD 5, rather than the only major contributor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I don’t think Liz suggested eligibility extended; quite the opposite, I would say (Liz clearly indicates the page is being improved), and her note is just for information, to prevent any CSD nomination, or at least to make things clear. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I didn’t notice Mushi Yank’s edits in the last 48 hours. However, on 28th September, I did suggest CSD G5 because that sock puppet was the main contributor, and it's worth noting that this sock puppet is notorious for creating biography articles. Pbritti disagreed, which is why we now have this AfD. My stance remains unchanged: she is only known because of her sister, as evidenced by all the sources that prominently mention her sister in both the headlines and the content. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my comments were unclear. I had deleted some other articles created by this sock but decided this one was not eligible due to the contributions of other editors to the content creation which wasn't the case with their other articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravieshwar Singh

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. It's just the blatant non adherence to the reviewer's comment/decline reason by the page creator/submitter. If we are considering the sources, they are mostly WP:SELFPUB. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Fashion, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Law, India, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, self-published sourcing, and editor has not taken into account advice. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - editor corrected TV Guide link, author published through reputable sources (not blogs), many citations to his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B837:8C03:E011:E929:8629:EFF (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. If it is kept then "Rgs21" should clarify if they have any link to Ravi Guru Singh, the nickname of the article subject. Ttwaring (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - substantively this page has more citations and support than many other notability pages. Rgs21 may be on vacation or unavailable and the page should not hinge on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.114.12 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost entirely self-published sources. A lawyer or writer is famous for writing; they are not notable for that. One can make yourself famous; to become notable requires other people writing about you. See WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I reviewed, the people writing about the subject include Marc Bain at the Business of Fashion (extensively), Divya Bhandari at the Hindu (extensively -- on the digital fashion and the future for India) -- articles are behind paywalls. To a lesser extent, the subject is written about and cited in other law.com articles on decentralized autonomous organizations, by the author Robert Schwinger, a prominent partner at Norton Rose Fulbright, an elite law firm. The Business of Fashion and the Hindu, are credible, reputable and independent sources. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.105.72 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - maybe this is raising WP:ASPERSIONs, but why would a bunch of random IP addresses be commenting on an AFD of a minor digital fashion lawyer? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PANICVOTE if this is what I think it is. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling out ducks is not casting aspersions.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mentions and self-pubs do not equal significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's some, not all references. Nyangaman4 (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then point out the others. You have failed to do so as of yet. Also, with only 65 edits and not editing Wikipedia in over a year, I am curious what brought you to this specific AfD discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did 5 accounts with less than 100 edits all suddenly comment on this after I pointed out WP:PANICVOTE? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman:, based on the results of this SPI, you can probably strike the keep votes of confirmed socks. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the SPI, counting off at least 4-5 keep votes. Thank you for your hard work in reviewing :) 74.101.99.164 (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Regardless of whether the voting above is in fact WP:PANIC or not, the article for Ravieshwar Singh is well sourced, with about two dozen citations. Vogue (magazine), Elle (magazine), TV Guide Magazine, the Huffington Post, and other high-traffic, top-tier online magazines are all cited. Definitely not a notability fail since this meets WP:SIGCOV. Nyangaman4 (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
passing refs and interviews cannot establish notability Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well-sourced and he has extensive coverage in reputable outlets like Vogue and Elle, demonstrating clear notability per WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Licatatom (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is recognized in high-profile publications, has substantial coverage that compiles with Wikipedia's notability criteria. Toopus (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – He meets the criteria of WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources such as Business of Fashion, Vogue, Elle, The Times of India, and The Hindu. These outlets provide in-depth coverage of his contributions in digital fashion, AI activism, and law. He also meets notability in the "Others" category with his media appearances in a Netflix show, his role in a documentary at the Cleveland International Film Festival, and his work in legal publications. DominicJoshua (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – For reasons stated above, this is GNG. Added additional coverage.