Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fashion story


 * 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. That there are sources which use this set of words together is not doubted. But what has not been demonstrated is that there are any reliable sources which provide depth of coverage about these words as a collective term. Just because you take any two words, put them in quotes and google it, does not mean that the 4.1 million ghits shows that the term itself is notable. This article is a dicdef, a howto, an essay.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fashion story

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism; no evidence of widespread use. References cited are either generic links to magazine sites (and therefore useless for our purposes), or simply examples of what the author claims are pieces that fit the definition. Fails WP:NEO. (Declined speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not a neologism and, in any case, this would not be a reason to delete as the title can be changed. The phrase seems to get lots of usage and so there would be little difficulty improving this article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Where is the evidence that we can verify that it is in widespread use? And what would the title be changed to? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added citations to two books on fashion writing. Where is the evidence of your work on the topic, per WP:BEFORE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 2008-12-26 12:05:45
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: [it provides no more than a definition and examples and] WP:NOT. HrafnTalkStalk 17:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC) [Clarified for the comprehensionally-challenged HrafnTalkStalk 14:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC) ]
 * Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'wave' was by no means 'vague' -- and I would assume that most understood my meaning, but I've clarified it so that even the comprehensionally-challenged should be able to get the point. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not give any indication that an unfixed 'bad stub' should not be deleted. HrafnTalkStalk 14:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion policy does, though. We don't delete stubs unless there is no possibility for their expansion.  You've shown no evidence that you've done any of the research to determine whether expansion is possible, as has been required by deletion policy for several years, now. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have started a rewrite to demonstrate the potential of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A little better, but the new links still don't seem to tell what a "fashion story" is. I guess my point is that a fashion story is simply a story about fashion, just as a sports story is a story about sports, but neither term is deserving of a separate article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And you know that it is undeserving because you are clairvoyant? You are supposed to look for sources yourself in making these determinations, not make guesses based solely upon subjective opinion.  Policy is clear that sources determine these decisions, not subjective judgements. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I know that it is undeserving because the term is not in widespread use, at least not from sources that can be verified, as I have said previously. You're also demanding proof of a negative - that something doesn't exist. Additionally, your comments are starting to drift into the area of personal attacks, which is not allowed. (Of course, as an admin, you should know that.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly good stub, sources adequate to what is being claimed. Still should be expanded such that it cannot be confused with a dictdef. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't see how this can become an encyclopedic article. Do we have an article on encyclopedic article yet? --Crusio (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We have stub, Article development, The perfect article, and Deletion policy. What efforts have you made to determine that the appropriate portion of deletion policy, namely that a stub cannot possibly be expanded, applies?  Have you actually looked for sources yourself?  If not, your opinion is baseless, because you cannot know whether deletion policy actually applies or not. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, as I said above, I cannot fathom how an encyclopedic article could be written on the subject of "fashion story", hence my delete vote. Based on what you say just before, you seem to have ideas about that, so why don't you go ahead, expand this into an encyclopedic article (or something that looks like it might become one) and I'll be happy to admit that I lacked in imagination and will change my vote to keep. Until that happens, I maintain my "delete" vote, though. --Crusio (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2008 (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.