541:. (Tom Ford had no problem getting people to review his collection, even though he did not have a "show" as such. Alexander McQueen's last collection wasn't in a "show", but it was in every paper imaginable.) If Christian Dior decided to present its next couture collection without a fashion show, reporters would still cover it. Fashion shows are simply the traditional way to "premiere" new collections. And major designers aren't just putting out lines willy-nilly. Designer clothing generally comes from two major collections per year (spring, fall), with adaptations from the runway. (There is also "resort" and "pre-fall" but these are generally commercial and not so directional--not where designers' big ideas go--and they generally receive little to no coverage.)
243:, as Dior is one of the most influential fashion houses in history and present, making this collection, and any other collection they've presented, notable. Just because we don't have proper coverage on Knowledge (XXG) of those other collections, or collections by other notable houses, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have this. We suck at fashion coverage, and this article is meant to spur on those with appropriate knowledge to correct our unintentional blindness to the industry, write about other collections. --
415:
collections are an important part of fashion history. We wouldn't delete an article about a movie (another aesthetic work) simply because most reviews of the movie were contemporaneous. Such a thing is to be expected. Also, as noted in the article, this was one of
Galliano's most celebrated collections for Dior. We should have more articles like this, not less. (I have actually been working on one as a proof-of-concept in my sandbox for a while... See
485:
515:. Why else would the sources make note of models used and celebrities who showed up? Why else would the coverage be linked to a very specific time frame? If this collection had not been released via a fashion show, would it have received any coverage? No. Clothing designers put out new lines all the time and the media pays no attention without the fashion show - without the
488:
to find all the relevant long-term coverage! There may be more, it will just be difficult to dig up. The most important industry publication, Women's Wear Daily, is also entirely behind a paywall, so it's possible there is more there. I'd concede that this coverage would probably be better if it were
461:
and three and a half months after its US release it's still receiving coverage and will likely be continually referenced for years to come. That's what happens with films. With fashion shows, on the other hand, after just three and a half days the coverage is over. Just the fact that one can argue
425:
has to do with biographies; promotional tone is fixed by editing not deletion. "Over-enthusiastic"? These are reviews by professional fashion critics, who have no more reason to be "over-enthusiastic" than film critics, for example. All or none? inability to use subjective criteria? This is the whole
196:
As a previous editor's PROD stated, a designer can obviously be notable, but individual shows/collections are not. I agree for the most part. If this show represented some sort of milestone or landmark in fashion design, I wouldn't find an article objectionable, but as it is, it appears to be just
294:
A good case could be made to keep, since the event was well covered in the media. However the one event issue mentioned above seems to be a problem with "WP is not news." Also the there was no information on the real lasting importance of the event, just rather overenthusiastic impressions of the
426:
point of the notability guideline. We don't say that all books are notable or none are. And as far as a merger (because this should be preserved rather than deleted), what would be wrong with combining it with other shows? For a similar example of combining more minor happenings onto one page, see
456:
matter that the reviews/commentary happened immediately after the show—WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE very specifically states that events are generally not notable when this is the case, and Dior being "hugely important" does not refute that. Not to mention, relating fashion shows to movies is not an apt
414:
This aesthetic work is more along the lines of a movie or book (or maybe a tv episode) than a news item. There is plenty of independent third-party coverage. It doesn't matter that this most reviews and commentary happened at the time of its release - Dior is a hugely important designer, and Dior
484:
installation, for example, received full-length reviews from The Age, The
Guardian, the New York Times (three reviews!), AFP, the Telegraph, and the New York Post, I don't think there would be a fight over whether it was notable. A movie also has a title for easy searching. Try going through
261:
Yes, Dior is a fashion heavyweight, but trying to rank designers/fashion houses by influence in order to decide whose collections all deserve articles and whose don't would be subjective. All collections by all notable designers should be allowed or none should be, and frankly, I don't feel
483:
doesn't apply to aesthetic works. Sure, Black Swan is still receiving coverage, but many movies are not, and we don't demand that they do. (Inclusion is okay as long as "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.") If an art
462:
that this show was one of
Galliano's most celebrated and yet in terms of continued coverage it's received one measly sentence years later goes to show that even the supposedly-renowned shows/collections do not have enough lasting significance to warrant an encyclopedic article.
434:
is silly, because this level of detail should not be crammed into the general page. It is ridiculous to think that all worthy information (that is, the information that
Knowledge (XXG) should contain eventually) about Dior, which has a long history, could be combined into one
262:
Knowledge (XXG) needs hundreds or thousands of articles providing little more than aesthetic descriptions of clothing. The vast majority of these collections have no lasting significance. They're debuted in a fashion show and the media covers it only briefly—just like a
197:
another show, no different from countless others that have received similar coverage but no Wiki articles. As a result, I don't see how this article has any more encyclopedic value than articles on a random political speech or rock concert the media commented on.
266:. The "Further reading" section for this article demonstrates this; it's entirely composed of reviews written within a few days of the show (while the lone reference written later devotes only a single sentence to the collection in passing), clearly failing
334:. (There is a section titled "21st Century.") I wouldn't expect that any secondary source has covered the topic of the 2000s collections as a whole. Otherwise you would just be putting a bunch of non-notable articles together on one page.
165:
295:
event itself-- I am sure reflecting the sources. To improve WP's coverage of fashion it would be better to work in the other direction and explain larger topics, as well as articles on important individuals, for the general reader.
536:
Huh? The article is titled "collection", and that's what is the most important point here. The event as such is of secondary importance. Lately you see more and more designers doing presentations rather than shows--see, e.g.,
511:
Yes, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE pertains to events, and that's what we're dealing with here. Sure, you can call it an aesthetic work and say that's all this is about, but the coverage is all of a
493:, but I don't have the time to write that article right now, and to preserve information it's better to keep it where it is than delete it (and better to keep it where it is than merge it to
159:
99:
94:
103:
86:
126:
217:
383:
Even though the event was about a major high-fashion clothing producer and retailer, the article itself is limited and it crashes with a Wiki guideline
519:. In that sense, a clothing collection has no notability at all. The event is what garners the coverage and this event fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.
90:
180:
416:
538:
147:
490:
427:
62:
82:
74:
550:
531:
506:
474:
445:
406:
372:
343:
324:
304:
282:
252:
232:
209:
68:
141:
17:
270:. Not to mention, this article has been here for seven years and it has not spurred anyone into thinking more of them are needed.
137:
480:
267:
187:
569:
36:
312:
387:, because it was one event and one event only, and the article itself is written like a promo or advertising flyer.
153:
568:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
546:
502:
441:
339:
300:
228:
422:
384:
263:
494:
173:
52:
49:
355:
403:
542:
498:
437:
335:
320:
296:
248:
224:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
315:, and be kept without pruning? It would of course need expansion, but would that work? --
368:
521:
464:
389:
272:
199:
316:
244:
120:
364:
358:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
48:. A close debate, but I don't see it leaning either way significantly.
562:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
431:
331:
330:
It would be better to cover the material in the main article on
417:
User:Calliopejen1/WIP/Spring 2009 Chanel couture collection
116:
112:
108:
172:
489:grouped with the other 2004 Dior collections (a la
363:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
186:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
572:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
218:list of Fashion-related deletion discussions
216:Note: This debate has been included in the
215:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
491:2010 Stanford Cardinal football team
428:2010 Stanford Cardinal football team
83:Spring 2004 Dior couture collection
75:Spring 2004 Dior couture collection
24:
313:Dior couture collections, 2000s
1:
311:Could the article be renamed
457:comparison. I just googled
421:Rebutting invalid reasons:
589:
551:21:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
532:19:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
507:15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
475:13:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
446:17:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
407:02:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
373:00:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
344:03:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
69:07:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
430:. The idea of merging to
325:18:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
305:16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
283:15:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
253:03:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
233:03:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
210:02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
565:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
481:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
268:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
495:Christian Dior S.A.
44:The result was
486:these search hits
436:
375:
235:
221:
580:
567:
530:
528:
473:
471:
420:
362:
360:
281:
279:
222:
208:
206:
191:
190:
176:
124:
106:
65:
60:
55:
34:
588:
587:
583:
582:
581:
579:
578:
577:
576:
570:deletion review
563:
522:
520:
465:
463:
371:
353:
273:
271:
200:
198:
133:
97:
81:
78:
63:
58:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
586:
584:
575:
574:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
449:
448:
409:
377:
376:
367:
361:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
308:
307:
288:
287:
286:
285:
256:
255:
237:
236:
194:
193:
130:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
585:
573:
571:
566:
560:
552:
548:
544:
540:
535:
534:
533:
529:
527:
526:
518:
514:
510:
509:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
487:
482:
478:
477:
476:
472:
470:
469:
460:
455:
451:
450:
447:
443:
439:
433:
429:
424:
418:
413:
410:
408:
405:
404:
402:
401:
398:
395:
392:
386:
382:
379:
378:
374:
370:
366:
359:
357:
352:
351:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:
306:
302:
298:
293:
290:
289:
284:
280:
278:
277:
269:
265:
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:
238:
234:
230:
226:
219:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
205:
204:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
564:
561:
543:Calliopejen1
524:
523:
516:
513:fashion show
512:
499:Calliopejen1
467:
466:
458:
453:
438:Calliopejen1
411:
399:
396:
393:
390:
388:
380:
354:
336:Steve Dufour
297:Steve Dufour
291:
275:
274:
240:
202:
201:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
423:WP:ONEEVENT
385:WP:ONEEVENT
160:free images
539:this story
459:Black Swan
264:news item
525:Mbinebri
468:Mbinebri
356:Relisted
276:Mbinebri
203:Mbinebri
127:View log
479:Except
317:Zanimum
245:Zanimum
166:WP refs
154:scholar
100:protect
95:history
50:King of
381:Delete
292:Delete
225:Danger
138:Google
104:delete
517:event
435:page.
365:Logan
181:JSTOR
142:books
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
547:talk
503:talk
454:does
442:talk
432:Dior
412:Keep
369:Talk
340:talk
332:Dior
321:talk
301:talk
249:talk
241:Keep
229:talk
174:FENS
148:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
497:).
452:It
223:--
188:TWL
125:– (
549:)
505:)
444:)
419:.)
400:ni
397:mo
394:ue
391:Ed
342:)
327:'
323:)
303:)
251:)
231:)
220:.
168:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:♠
545:(
501:(
440:(
338:(
319:(
299:(
247:(
227:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
123:)
85:(
64:♣
59:♦
54:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.