Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolina Herrera Spring 2014 Ready-to-Wear Collection


 * 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   no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Carolina Herrera Spring 2014 Ready-to-Wear Collection

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable. No other fashion designer has an article just for their 2014 collection, what makes this one so notable that it merits one? Gbawden (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 13:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Very few fashion collections/presentations would be notable enough for a standalone article, and even then, the notability would only be apparent many years afterwards, like Dior's 1947 launch collection (which doesn't really need a standalone article anyway). Mabalu (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends. According to WP:GNG, there are sufficient in-depth, reliable sources to pass, but this could also be considered a single event. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely a single event. I really doubt anyone will even be thinking about it in a few months time. Mabalu (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. As per Bearian the article cites sufficient independent reliable sources to satisfy notability. Wikipedia is not paper: there's no practical limit to how many articles it can contain, and just because we don't have articles on other 2014 collections is not an argument for this one to be deleted. (The non-existence of other articles may in fact indicate systemic bias resulting from our gender gap: that possibility argues for us to tread lightly here. Note that the Countering Systemic Bias wikiproject recommends that Wikipedians "[b]e careful not to worsen the bias with your deletion nominations.") The article could probably be revised to make it more encyclopediac in tone, but I do not believe it should be deleted. Sue Gardner (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As a fashion specialist actively trying to improve fashion coverage on here, I think this is a ridiculous subject for an individual article. Maybe part of an article on "Collections of Carolina Herrera" but seriously? There are tens of thousands of individual fashion collections out there from notable designers, so should we start flooding Wikipedia with these? For example, any moderately successful designer will put on at least four shows a year - spring/summer and autumn/winter, high end or couture, ready to wear, and some even do resort and pre-fall collections and others in between. We have Spring 2009 Chanel couture collection and while I think that one's a bit overkill, I can just about accept it - Chanel is so huge, and haute couture shows are major presentations. Similarly, Alexander McQueen's shows were pretty massive, major events that received significant individual coverage and are still critically discussed now - I wouldn't rush to make articles on them, but I think they're definitely legit subjects because they are still being discussed by fashion historians nowadays - like certain (but not all) of Elsa Schiaparelli's 1930s collections. Plus, this is Herrera's latest ready-to-wear collection - how is that not approaching promo and advertising for a single event? Now if we were talking about a show that was still being discussed and critically considered years afterwards, like McQueen's Highland Rape collection, or any of Dior's original 1947-57 collections, we'd be talking... Mabalu (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear you Mabalu but that said, we have 719 articles on Pokemon characters. We have | 693 articles about DC Comics super-villains. We have | what, 5K-10K articles about railway stations that are now closed? All that is fine with me, and an article on Carolina Herrera's spring 2014 collection is fine with me too.
 * What you have here is a new editor, who's obviously motivated, a good writer, and has subject-matter expertise that's relatively rare in the projects, who wants to help improve Wikipedia. We know that number-of-editors is down because non-vandal newbies are quitting and that | reversions and deletions have increased over the years; we know 17% of departed editors say they left because of being reverted/deleted, and that women specifically frequently cite it as a reason for quitting. Deleting this new contributor's first-ever article, which is not a BLP violation or in any way damaging to enWP, strikes me as short-sighted. Why not encourage her instead? Sue Gardner (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear you on this - I think you make a good point and I agree that the editor could be very useful for Wikipedia and has potential to be a good contributor. And as for the railway stations/comic characters - yes, other crap exists, but what has that to do with the discussion here? I think we need to focus more on laying down the basic foundations of fashion on Wikipedia, and I hope User:Lisacarolinamartinez will be a highly valuable part of this - I'm particularly excited that she wants to improve red carpet coverage as I'm the guy who started doing the Red Carpet fashion articles, so I hope she will stick around despite my personal views on this particular article's worthiness. It's definitely nothing personal against her and I do appreciate that she's good at what she does - it's just that this particular article seems a bit too single-event and niche, and unlikely to show lasting notability. Mabalu (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel that this article meets the notability guidelines to not only be retained, but to stand alone. This was not solely an event; the collection as a whole body (body of work/fashion as art) represents a notable product of a notable and established company. There are plenty of reliable sources that talk about this product line. In the words of the general notability guideline, it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It garnered attention domestically and internationally. Fashion, like cars or other similar product lines, is referential and cyclical--to say someone may not be thinking about a collection in a few months' time seems a bit myopic--earlier collections provide a foundation and framework for subsequent works and over time build a larger body/retrospective of work. You can see for instance discussion of Herrera's evolution as a designer in coverage of this specific product line -. My ultimate goal is to help build a fashion repository, an archive of fashion collections. More than half a billion monthly visitors rely on Wikipedia for information--but this is an area that is severely lacking and that I think we can improve. While I think the article should be retained and expanded upon as part of a growing body of coverage of the subject, if the article is to be deleted, perhaps, I can restructure and expound upon the subject, aggregating previous and subsequent collections into one article. I had to start somewhere and this seemed like a good foundation. If the article is not judged to meet standalone notability criteria, I would be happy to rename this article as "Carolina Herrera Collections" and expound upon it to make it more comprehensive. One thing I did note, Mabalu, is that the four designers (Chanel, Dior, Schiaparelli, and McQueen) you cited are all deceased (and the former two have haute couture collections)--hopefully, Wikipedians don't solely consider a designer's work noteworthy posthumously. I think it is important to differentiate between Couture, RTW, Pre-Fall, and Resort. Sadly, Couture is a dying art form and not accessible to the general population--yes it's seen on the red carpet (and should also be included in the project), but ready-to-wear has a larger audience and customer base and is more susceptible to imitations--yielding more coverage, discussions, interest, etc., thereby making it more noteworthy. Of all the categories, RTW, featuring the world's most preeminent designers, is also the most widely-covered and has a month of collections (New York, London, Milan, Paris) dedicated to it twice annually. I believe that there is room on Wikipedia and that it is well within our scope to cover it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisacarolinamartinez (talk • contribs) 23:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not know much (anything?) about fashion, but I agree with Sue Gardner here with the bias-issue, though maybe Collections of Carolina Herrera would be better. &mdash; fnielsen (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I want to thank all of you who have set aside the time to comment on this article. Clearly, this is somewhat new territory for me and Wikipedia. My goal as part of the Wikipedia Fashion Project is to help expand fashion coverage on the site. Daily, I search for and find most topics of interest covered on Wikipedia, with one notable exception--fashion. Fashion is a subject of encyclopedic interest (for one example, among many Oxford UP has an award-winning 10-volume set http://global.oup.com/academic/product/encyclopedia-of-world-dress-and-fashion-9780195377330;jsessionid=602461696283C102FC1D226946113752?cc=us&lang=en&) but we still have very little coverage of fashion here. While this article may be unusual, I believe that this is because the area needs improvement; the lack of material in this area is a missed opportunity to not only provide useful information but also to attract new readers and engage/retain new editors who are also interested in this subject matter.
 * Hi User:Lisacarolinamartinez - Just a note, and I'm surprised that you suggested that there's a bias towards deceased designers - while Chanel IS deceased, the current designer, Karl Lagerfeld is not deceased and he's the guy responsible for the collection I noted had an article on it. Similarly, there have been Galliano collections for Dior that would be notable, and Galliano's definitely not deceased either. So there's no anti-living bias going on here - in fact, Hussein Chalayan has had some very notable individual collections too. And Vivienne Westwood has had quite a few too. But enough time has passed to make it obvious that those collections went beyond the one-off events they essentially were, to have enduring impact and significance. In this case, I am not able to see how a Carolina Herrera collection, one of thousands like it held in the same season, deserves its own individual article - although personally I would have no problem with an article such as Collections of Carolina Herrera that encapsulated each season's trends and basic styles in a concise, clear way. Not one I would personally be interested in doing, but if someone else is - please do! Mabalu (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Mabalu - I don't think we're that far apart. We seem to share a genuine interest in and an extensive knowledge of fashion. I mean no disrespect at all to Karl Lagerfeld or current Dior Creative Director, Raf Simons; however, they are creative directors--no matter who is at the helm or how indelible their mark, the eponymous house remains the same--I was merely noting that the houses you mentioned were named for founders who are no longer living. The living designers you've mentioned are all quite unique--avant-garde (Chalayan), eccentric (Westwood), and a controversial genius (Galliano)... I am also a longtime fan of Hussein Chalayan! I still remember the table dress he designed more than a decade ago; he inspired my love of convertible dressing. I see where another contributor did what we've discussed earlier within the Chalayan article, expounding upon individual collections within his biographical article. As we also share the objective to improve the fashion coverage on Wikipedia, I hope that we have the opportunity to collaborate at some point (beyond this discussion)—-imagine the encyclopedic fashion repository we could help build! One thing's for certain you've given me ideas for more articles and edits. LisacarolinamartinezLisacarolinamartinez (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not an expert, but it seems to me that starting with individual collections within the biographical article and then spinning that out into a list of collections when they outgrow that, and building out from that list to individual articles on collections would be a good way to start. It's also going to be easier for people to find on search. You're talking about a massive project here (even for one designer, you're looking at 10-12 articles per year), and if you lost interest in Wikipedia, individual standalone articles could become stranded, whereas if the framework is already there, it would be much easier for other editors to build on. Impressed by your passion. So, User:Lisacarolinamartinez would you be open to either merging it into Carolina Herrera or starting a new article called Collections of Carolina Herrera? And I do think, with others, that Highland Rape clearly deserves its own entry, so it might be worth starting with standalone truly notable, landmark collections, and then working back... AdventurousMe (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2014 (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.