Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decora


 * 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 to delete, merging can be done without an AfD. W.marsh 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Decora

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Article on a fashion style, but it is unsourced, and searching doesn't give turn up any reliable sources, making it unverifiable. The article also fails to assert notability, but as a subculture and not a group of people, it is not a candidate for A7. Also including Ero kawaii, another article with similar issues. --Core desat  03:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete both, fails WP:V and WP:N per nom. -  SpL o T  (*C*+u+g) 03:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep both These are interesting fashion styles, these articles should be cleaned up and sourced rather than deleted. - Candy-Panda 03:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both - not verifiable, interesting or worthwhile--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 04:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Decora to FRUiTS Magazine, since the only reliable sources I've been able to find mention it in that context. Presumably the two books based on the magazine are sources.  Redirect ero kawaii to Kumi Koda, where it is already mentioned.  (I'm happy to change either of these opinions if more sources turn up.) As an aside, personal opinions about whether something is interesting are not good reasons to keep or delete.  For every article you like, someone out there thinks it's boring.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  05:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes they are good reasons. And so is a lack of notability and verifibility.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. As Celithemis points out, such criteria lead to chaos.  We do not employ either "I think that it is interesting." or "I think that it is not interesting." as criteria.  Notability is not subjective. Uncle G 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect both, somewhere, or delete. They might be better redirected to the (pretty horrible) Japanese fashion article, based on that article's contents rather than its name. They have yet to merit a mention there, so I doubt that they require their own articles. There are several articles related to Japanese fashion that lack context or believable assertions of notability. Hopefully they won't stay around because of WP:ILIKEIT. Dekimasu 11:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No opinion on Decora, Keep Ero kawaii: Japanese TV channel NTV has a contest based on ero kawaii here, so I cannot justify deleting the second page. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It directly references "Koda Kumi-san" rather than treating "erokawa" as a separate entity. That would seem to lend credence to Celithemis's redirect suggestion. Dekimasu 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - I don't see how Ero Kawaii is that much different than Kinderwhore. The information could be merged there. MightyAtom 04:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - could be merged later if a consensus develops. Disagree with nom; Google searches don't establish unverifiability... Addhoc 15:17, 28 January 2007 (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.