Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fashion Week Online


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Fashion Week Online

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:WEBCRIT - there's evidence that the Fashion Week Online website "has been cited" in some reliable sources, but none of these sources tell us anything about the website. All other sources are WP:PRIMARY. McGeddon (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment At the very least the article requires WP:CLEANUP. The line "has been photographed with prominent fashion figures such as" is exceptionally unencyclopedic. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. Use as a source by others indicates possible notability but amount of coverage is insufficient - unlike FTL Moda mentioned in the article which is subject of an article on the Al Jazeera website. Fashion Week Online could be redirected to publisher Pablo Avion but his article needs reference improvements, both in formatting and in reliability. Peter James (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I've waited to comment and I believe it's simply currently too soon for a solidly notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand what you guys are saying. At the same time, the kind of feature you're talking about it tantamount to expecting a media outlet to write a profile piece or feature about another media outlet. While this certainly does happen, it's worth remembering that media outlets are essentially in competition, so the kind of extensive "profile piece" or full feature (as happened with FTL Moda, who is a show producer) may not be very common. I feel the breadth of the citations, along with the content (interviews with industry people who thought it was worthwhile to give the interviews), makes the case the website is notable enough to keep. Although, admittedly, I am no expert. : ) Polarisminor (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (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.