Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue dress of Meagan Good


 * 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   merge to Meagan Good . — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Blue dress of Meagan Good

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think it is too soon for such an article, although I can see where - if coverage continues beyond WP:SINGLEEVENT - this may be notable enough for a mention in the Red carpet fashion of 2013 article when that is created. Although we have several articles on individual dresses, they have demonstrated notability through receiving continuing coverage, citations and references beyond the original media attention over their first appearance. WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and while I can see that coverage could potentially endure, it is possibly too early for an article dealing with a dress that was only worn a few weeks ago (although it is reasonably nicely written). Mabalu (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would note that I am a strong supporter of fashion coverage on Wikipedia, and personally, I LIKE the article and would be delighted to see it restored further down the line once enduring notability is demonstrated. Mabalu (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I would support a merge/redirect to Meagan Good for the time being, rather than outright deletion. Mabalu (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Meagan Good. It would be best covered (at this time) in her article. If/when it does garner more criticism, we can always un-redirect it. It's just a little too soon at this point in time for an article, as there isn't really that much media buzz about this when you get down to it. Enough exists for a mention in her article, but not so much for an independent article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not a fashionista, but this seems to have buzz to me. What do I know though. I am far from my comfort zone with this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. there are a lot of other sources that I have not included:
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/meagan-good-cleavage-baring-gown-2013-bet-awards-_n_3528375.html
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2352171/BET-Awards-2013-Meagan-Good-goes-braless-extremely-low-cut-gown-attends-BET-Awards.html
 * http://www.ibtimes.com/megan-good-dress-actress-pulls-jennifer-lopez-plunging-blue-gown-2013-bet-awards-photo-1329421
 * I could expand it a little.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. I have beefed it up a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I still sort of feel that it's a bit too soon for this to have an article. There is buzz, but the coverage so far is still fairly small when you get down to it. When it comes to coverage, you have to compare it to things such as the Green Versace dress of Jennifer Lopez and Black Versace dress of Elizabeth Hurley. So far this hasn't received the coverage or attention that previous dresses have. It might, but that'd be WP:CRYSTAL to assume that it will. This is just far too soon and the coverage so far isn't enough to merit its own article, as it's too soon to really show that this coverage is in-depth enough to merit its own article. Dresses are really the sort of thing that are almost impossible to show immediate notability for. Even Kate Middleton's engagement dress took the better part of a year to really show notability for. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I removed the Daily Mail source. The problem is that the Daily Mail is really just a tabloid along the lines of the National Enquirer when you get down to it, and it's not even usable as a reliable source for things such as this. I couldn't even use one of their book reviews to source an article either, so that's sort of how unreliable of a source they're considered to be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's also a mostly general consensus that we can't really use the Huffington Post as a RS as well, for various reasons. This one looks relatively good, but I usually try to avoid using them as a source in general nowadays because when it comes to sourcing, their site is usually considered to be non-reliable. I've never been given a truly concrete reason for this, but it usually runs along the lines that the site is considered to be a bloggish-type site when you get down to it. Sources from the HP are greatly depreciated, in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Tokyogirl has summed up many of my concerns here. It doesn't matter how many current references there are - we need to see continued coverage in several sources at least several months after the occasion of its wearing has passed to demonstrate that it has made a lasting impact, and is still remembered. Fashion coverage on Wikipedia is not one of our strongest points, and articles such as this give the impression that ANY dress that receives more than passing attention at the Oscars, Grammys, or wherever, should have an article made on it, which sets a dangerous precedent. Many created individual dress articles have since been merged into general red carpet fashion articles for their relevant year. Two recent AFDs that are relevant here, for dresses that were worn rather longer ago and due to having received ongoing coverage over the following years, were demonstrated to be notable enough to keep. (I voted keep on the yellow dress based on coverage, but remain to be convinced that the silver one is notable enough for a standalone article - something its creator agreed with me on!) - Note User:DGG's very valid comments in both.
 * Articles for deletion/Silver Giorgio Armani dress of Cate Blanchett
 * Articles for deletion/Yellow Valentino dress of Cate Blanchett
 * TonytheTiger, it's not that I'm saying we don't need articles on individual dresses - it's that it is simply way too soon for this particular one to have an article. If, in six months time or a year it is still receiving ongoing discussion and analysis, then yes, the article could be argued to be appropriate, but at this point, it's too soon. Mabalu (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * May I ask what would be wrong with having a dozen dresses from each oscar season have articles? The ones that show up on a bunch of best (or worst) dressed lists that season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is a relevant tangent for the AFD, so will keep brief - maybe best for talk page? Simply being mentioned on a list would probably not demonstrate notability - but being discussed in depth, argued over, and most importantly - still being talked about years afterwards - would be notable. Red carpet fashion in 2008 mentions at least two dresses that would probably pass notability for individual articles - Swinton's black toga dress and Paltrow's trompe l'oeil dress - but IMO, they are sufficiently covered for now on the page they're on. Let's debate this on one of our talk pages in more depth if you like, keep this AFD focused. Mabalu (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * merge to the individual. I've re-read my previous comments referred to here, and expand on them: What has to be notable is the dress itself, not that the otherwise unremarkable dress was worn by a particular person, unless that person's wearing of the dress, becomes itself of encyclopedic significance. Dresses worn at X occasion can be a perfectly good article, so can dresses worn by a particular person-- in either case if that is the focus of the notability of the group as a whole. And certainly a dress itself regardless of who wears it can be notable, if it enters the collection of a major museum, like any other work of pure or applied art.  But the notability here is not the dress, or the occasion, but apparently  that the person wore it in a manner not characteristic of some aspects of her personal life, in which case it's part of the notability of the person. The sources are unreliable for notability of any one costume: they tend to cover all costumes of the occasion, or all costumes sensational in some manner, such as being  particularly revealing. "Sensational" is not encyclopedic notability but tabloid importance, and the reason for deprecating the HP on subjects like this is that its coverage is in some respects that of a tabloid. (The reason for deprecating it in some other contexts is that its news reports might be inadequately edited, or excessively resemble editorials). This is consonant with my previous opinions.  We need to be very cautious in extending notability to   objects associated with famous individuals, They can indeed become of iconic significance, but this take a considerable time to establish.  DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the likelihood of a the dress by a non-notable (no WP article) designer making a museum collection is probably pretty low. It is not clear why this is not a dresses worn at X occasion or a dresses worn by a particular person. This subject is partly notable for the wearer's status as a preacher's wife, but is partly notable for her presenting the Best Gospel Artist award. The proposed DYK hook (Template:Did you know nominations/Blue dress of Meagan Good) for this subject probably reflects the proper emphasis. The Witherspoon dress was similarly notable for her personal situation as the What Ryan dress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:18, 15 July 2013 (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.