Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fashion faux pas


 * 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. There's no consensus that the OR and other problems are so severe as to require deletion rather than editing.  Sandstein  06:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fashion faux pas

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is just a mess of sneers and personal opinions, jammed together with quotes from fashionistas. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are certainly serious verifiability and original research concerns. Almost every definition of the base terminology used in the article is sourced to Urban Dictionary.  An original synthesis of multiple bad definitions from an unreliable source is highly suspect from the start.  This is not to say that there aren't sources to be had.  There are.  Chapter 17 of Martin's and Lehu's Fashion for Dummies has a list of fashion faux pas, for example.  But this article shows that there's plenty of scope for writing exceedingly badly upon the subject, either by using unreliable sources or by collecting a list of instances of things that people have called a fashion faux pas and hoping that proper analysis will magically arise once some mysterious critical mass has been reached.  No wonder the article was redirected early in its history.  Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any possible article that could be written here as of the present.  There is a possibility for a retrospective article about this, but I think that's a long shot.  I don't think any amount of rewriting will remove the inherent PoV nature from this article, to say nothing of sourcing.  --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure about this one (neutral). If some reliable sources are added--scratch that; if some reliable sources replace the sources that are there already, I could !vote weak keep. Right now, it looks like the article was written by Perez Hilton. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete. This article has been created for a university assignment on wiki creation.  We are working to improve it with guidance from our professor.  If you could please refrain from deleting it until September 2010, your assistance would be greatly appreciated.  If you have any questions or concerns, you can reach me at cross01@uoguelph.ca.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.100.238 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You and your professor should both visit School and university projects immediately. I also highly recommend a trip to "Resources" in the editors' index and Article development. Uncle G (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Although admittedly the article is a bit of a mess at the moment, it's a good STARTING POINT for a potentially brilliant wikipedia article, and I can't see how deleting it could do anyone any good. There is no doubt about the notability of the subject, or indeed the existence of a variety of sources, and this article is currently being worked on, so we should really give it some more time, before just scrapping it. DubZog (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about reliable sources? The problem with something like this is that by its very nature it is opinion and thus PoV.  If someone can find a few objective academic sources on which to base an article, or even some objective journalism, I will promptly stand down, but bear in mind this article will be a lightning rod for nonsense.  Also, while I respect that there is an assignment involved, does anyone else think it is a bit strange to put it on wikipedia to facilitate the project for the professor?  I suppose it means we get our own dedicated work team for this article, but I certainly hope they can pull it together.  --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are loads of fashion magazines out there... and fashion sections of major newspapers etc etc.... I'm sure opinion polls about fashion have been carried out.. to be honest, I even think that plenty of books about fashion have been written, many of which touch upon what's NOT accepted as well. So all in all, I do think reliable sources can exist. And mind you, although the nature of this TOPIC is opinion, this is no restriction for someone willing to write an encyclopedia article on it, because it's possible to distinguish more widespread opinion from that of a particular editor by referring to the sources above, and also, regional differences etc could "easily" be covered in the article. Mind you, I'm definitely not saying that the fact that we have people currently working on this article should neccessarily mean that we'll keep it, I just think the topic in general could be worthwhile writing an article on. Hopefully they'll be able to pull it off indeed. DubZog (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Just to clarify, I think the article could exist in the form "so-and-so say that this is looked upon badly", which seems to be the direction the article's moving in at the moment... this is in accordance with the general attitude of wikipedia on disputable issues: Don't say that's true and that's false, but rather say "these people think that's true because of this and that, whereas these people think the opposite is true because about that and this". DubZog (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At minimum, we would need to expunge whatever in this comes from youtube and the urban dictionary. Whoever is doing the saying has to be an objective authority on the subject, preferably with something objective to back their assertions up.  As a side note, I wish more people would weigh into this discussion.  --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination itself just seems to be a sneer. The topic is notable and one could write an article just about the acceptability of wearing socks with sandals or white shoes after Labor Day.  See Ancient Geeks for an entertaining example of the numerous sources out there. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Every nomination is offensive to you. And judging from your article creation list, I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see Acceptability of socks with sandals appearing in the near future.    Snotty Wong   squeal 22:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sneering tone in this case arises from the use of words like mess, jammed, fashionista and sneer itself. Presumably you chose your user account name for similar reasons. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep however, it needs much work to remove the POV, as well as referencing and grammar and spelling.  Bramble  claw  x   16:23, 21 July 2010 (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.