Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This one night event was covered only once, in 2010, by reliable local sources. I have not been able to find reliable sources for the 2011 event, and, should they come up, I would be surprised if they would testify of significant coverage. This show may grow into something notable into the future, but I don't think we are quite there yet. RacconishTk 17:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - promo creation of a not very wiki noteworthy event by a COI user - a minor merge to the parent article should suffice. The detail is already there ( see - Davina Reichman ) but a minor merge perhaps Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Based upon talk page research here as well as my own inability to turn up any significant reliable source coverage that was not only promotional material from the lead-up to the event it appears this show is non-notable for Wikipedia.  The bulk of coverage I can find is event announcements, and some of the coverage there is not about the show itself, but the brand. Overall it seems to fail WP:GNG.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please refer to some reliable sources I've listed in my !vote below. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - spammy from its very creation; not notable then or now; see WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable--only one proper hit in a newspaper article, announcements don't count. Previous deletion discussion could have been closed as delete, but that's neither here nor there. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I voted to keep the first time around, but the lack of any reliable sources for the second show - in particular ones discussing it after the event - changes that. It worried me at the time that there weren't any, and by now there should have been. A merge and redirect to Davina Reichman, per Off2riorob, would make sense. I have no objection to recreating it if secondary sources later turn up for a second or subsequent show. - Bilby (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep For the same reasons I mentioned last month when it was at the previous AFD. Look at the press coverage they mention on their site. http://beingbornagain.net/buttons/Press.html Do you doubt any of that is real?  Is that not significant coverage in reliable sites?  Ample coverage I found last time at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/designers-put-their-art-into-show/story-e6frg6nf-1225831959837 is still valid.   D r e a m Focus  23:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The source for which you are providing a link was in the article when nominated. As you can see here, it has been removed by another editor. I suspect this is because this source mentioned Emily Fitzgerald, the other founder of the show. You can read here the explanation provided by the other editor. Concerning the sources indicated on the web site of the show, can you point to one significant one which would not be self-published? RacconishTk 23:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Being Born Again Couture, Sydney Morning Herald Style Insert, 22 April 2010. It also had that image and a mention of that section on the front cover of that notable newspaper.  They also list various notable magazines.   D r e a m Focus  05:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Concerning the SMH, I see here and here a picture with no caption and no mention of the show . Do I miss something? And I don't see in the list another source that is not used and could be considered reliable. In any case, I don't think the threshold of notability is finding another ref for the 2010 show: it would still be a single event, at least in terms of reliable coverage. RacconishTk 07:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The subject's pressbook is not acceptable as a reference in and of itself. It might well lead to citable material, however not everything the subject adds to its scrapbook is automatically substantial (non-trivial), reliable, third-party, notable, or even multiple, etc. Nobody has said the subject fabricated anything, though certain editors here using those articles have, in fact, synthesized improperly from them. It's extremely problematic when an editor here is willing to say "look at all the press the subject gathered about itself," without so much as a cursory confirmation of the contents. It shows a failure to understand why the subject isn't in the best position to report on itself or to decide what's reliable, notable, or even actual coverage. The subject may include ANYTHING IT WANTS, even when it might be objectively questionable. Supporting articles for a subject that is vain enough to scrapbook its own unsubstantial or irrelevant coverage, on the basis of the scrapbook itself, is foolhardy. When the words are right there to check – as in the case of "Art Weaves Its Spell" – and remove all doubt that it's not actually covering the subject, mentioning it here as coverage at all moves away from foolhardy toward dishonest. JFHJr (㊟) 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per rationale above; not notable then nor now. Neutralitytalk 04:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Coverage in Australian press is to the contrary. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - per comments above, SPS, COI, persistent uncivil attitude of COI editors making this article "unstable" by war editing and sheer ignorance and disregard for policies.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 14:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But edit-warring and ignorance are not reasons for deletion. Otherwise we'd have no articles on the Balkan or Justin Bieber. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in "buts" – articles are sometimes deleted after AFD and prevented from being recreated due to considerable disputes over content – the Alex Day article had this problem and recreation block applied. When articles reach a high enough level of disruption that it takes too much time to keep dealing with them, and wastes more editors time than is necessary, especially in the case of a trivial Stub such as this, rather than a BLP as long as Justin B. it's not worth the bandwidth – trash and block until someone comes up with a sandbox draft worth considering, simple as that. Also, in this case, Dom and Davina's friends are simply being pig-headed addlepated, as you have seen.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 02:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe in pork butt. I am a member of the bacon cabal, co-writer of Bacon explosion, author of the Ham template: please don't insult the little porkers by calling these editors "pig-headed". My point, though, remains: you may call for salt to prevent disruptive recreation, and I'll be glad to salt it for you, but that in itself is no reason for deletion. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I have no idea what that all meant, so I replaced pig-headed with "addlepated", to make my point more animal-friendly. Salt is bad for the heart when used to excess. Gotta trot off now, The Beatles are playing Piggies.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 07:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Optionally redirect to Davina Reichman, but I'm not sure that article is much less problematic and in the very same ways, for the very same reasons. While it's true past and ongoing SPS and COI activity have zero bearing here, they do explain why these articles are here at all. This event is not the subject of the WP:BASIC requirement of significant, reliable, and independent coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 16:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please refer to some reliable sources below. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Strong Keep - Per availability of reliable sources:
 * (April 22, 2010.) "Mobile Canvas, fusing fashion and art" Sydney Morning Herald.
 * (April 16-18, 2010), "What's on: Sydney." The Australian Financial Review.
 * Broughton, Cate (April 2010). "Art Weaves Its Spell." The Wentworth Courier. pp 38
 * (April 22, 2010) "Designs On You" Why wearable art has never looked so good." (Style insert). Sydney Morning Herald.
 * Reliable sources exist that cover the topic in detail, beyond a passing mention. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources exist that cover the topic in detail, beyond a passing mention. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have seen you comment previously "Speedy keep" - have you read - Speedy keep - if you have - could you please point me to the clause that you are asserting makes it applicable in this and similar situations - Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you have removed it - I do wonder if you have ever read WP:speedy keep but never mind - I also want to point out to you that adding strong to keep is also not considered in closures - Keep is plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. 2 of the sources above, The Australian and The Australian Financial Review, were already referenced in the article when brought here. They were clearly not sufficient. A 3rd one, The Sydney Morning Herald, was already suggested by . Neither him nor have addressed my concern here above: though this source is indicated on the website of Being Born Again, there is nothing more than a picture, with no indication it is connected with Being Born Again. No text. I have found nothing on the SMH web site. I am not implying an article does not exist, but on the basis of the 2 scans available on the web site of Being Born Again, there is no way to ascertain it deals specifically with our subject. At this point, we don't even know if it is 2 different articles in the same issue or a single one.  refers here above to an article entitled "Designs On You" Why wearable art has never looked so good.", while in the Ref section of the article, the title is different, "Mobile Canvas, fusing fashion and art". This suggests me he has had no further access to the source than this and that. As is, WP:SYN. Now the 4th source, The Wentworth Courier. The article is written by an intern, which does not plead for its reliability. More important, there is strictly no mention in this article of Being Born Again. It is about a "D&Em fashion label to be launched", which is not even mentioned by the 2 first sources. As is, WP:COATRACK. To summarize: these 2 last sources, not cited inline, do not deal specifically with Being Born Again . Hence, not WP:RS. Furthermore, a key issue, reminded by  is WP:TOOSOON/WP:UPANDCOMING. All these sources relate - or don't - to the April 2010 event. No reliable coverage yet on what may have happened after. &mdash;&thinsp;RacconishTk 20:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that the Wentworth Courier article by intern Cate Broughton is neither particularly reliable nor relevant in any way. It doesn't even mention the subject. In fact, this cite has previously been used in a misleading way in this article to try to show notability (see here). I also agree that two apparent SMH publications on the same day, one of which is apparently a photograph, does not show anything in the way of significant coverage. Because they offer nothing of substance for the prose of the article – they don't support any statements at all – they should be excluded from the article, and from consideration here. There's simply no difference between a blurb and the section it's pointing to; there's also no value in a picture that requires WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to make a noteworthy mention. In short, they're neither reliable (especially for the uses proposed), nor substantial. JFHJr (㊟) 16:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Question. How could we consider as an evidence of notability a self-serving quote that announces ... something different? &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;Tk 18:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We can't. JFHJr (㊟) 05:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as not having in-depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2011 (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.