Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiini


 * 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 redirect to Crochet bikini. And merge such content from the history as may be appropriate and supported by editorial consensus. Consensus seems to be that the concept and the related lawsuits are notable, and that how to present them neutrally and comprehensively is a matter for editors, not for AfD, and that an article about the broader concept rather than a specific product or brand is preferable.  Sandstein  10:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Kiini

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is entitled "Kiini" and refers to it as a design concept and clothing item, referring back to a series of articles first published in the NY Times. It also directly attributes "Kiini" (as a design concept) to a purported "original creator" named Maria Solange Ferrarini. My strong concerns with this attribution and mischaracterization are as follows:

- "Kiini" is a name of a bikini business founded in New York City by Ipek Irgit. The word "Kiini" is a trademark owned by said business.

- The term "Kiini" has only ever been used by this business, in reference to the brand itself.

- The original NY Times article purports that the concepts of the bikini designs sold by Kiini (the company) were created by an individual by the name of "Maria Solange Ferrarini". The article asserts that Kiini (the company) stole or otherwise took these ideas from Ferrarini, and later claimed a copyright on the design.

- It is worth noting that these claims have not been proven in any court of law, and the author of the article very clearly takes a stance on the matter—not shedding much light on Kiini's take of the situation, and instead, insinuating guilt. There is no concrete evidence offered in the article, only references to hearsay from ex-associates of the company.

- Regardless of the truthfulness of these claims—the article, and every other subsequent article detailing this saga, very clearly use the term "Kiini" to refer to the company, and the brand. They do not use it to refer to a design concept for a crochet bikini—of which there are decades upon decades of other examples and originators.

- The NY Times article also indicates that Maria Solange Ferrarini distances herself from the idea that she created "The Kiini" and rather, it explains that she had her own designs for years, and signed them with her name.

- Ferrarini went on to file for a copyright on her design, under the application title of "Ferrarini Bikini" only in 2018, years after Kiini was doing international business.

- Kiini remains a trademark of Ipek Irgit/Kiini LLC.

- This wikipedia entry very clearly blurs lines between what "Kiini" refers to and what it in fact is—which is a company, and a brand, which specializes in high end resort wear, namely, crochet bikinis.

- Instead, this article in its current standing insinuates that "Kiini" itself is a design, and misattributes it to Ferrarini.

- Further down, the article goes on to reference "Kiini" as a company, describing lawsuits.

- This, overall, is extremely misleading - and in fact very damaging to both parties, which are in the middle of legal proceedings. Ferrarini does not claim any relationship or ties to the term "Kiini" and in all the legal paperwork available online, her designs are "Ferrarini Bikini" and Kiini remains a standalone brand and entity. "Kiini" is never used as a term to refer to a style of bikini.

- These blurred lines, coupled with the lack of overall transparency on the entire matter, are compounded by a lack of credible sources without an extreme bias and agenda.

- There is no clear case for renaming the page to "crochet bikini," because Ferrarini was not the first, and will not be the last, designer of a crochet bikini - there are dozens of takes on this style of fashion throughout time.

- Furthermore, the content on this page, if it were to be moved to "Crochet Bikini" would be far, far too specific and detailed for a page centered around that topic, and the concept of a crochet bikini could never be rightfully attributed to a single individual. Alexslater86 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, emphatically: well-documented dispute, covered in depth by sources as reliable as one is likely ever to find regarding a story like this, and of significant professional/scholarly interest to intellectual property lawyers (the NYT article is likely more "reliable" by Wikistandards than law journal articles, frankly). There are certainly editorial improvements to be made to the article and retitling may be appropriate.  Certainly as Wikipedia develops its garment-industry coverage (hint hint, anyone?!) this is the type of subject matter the encyclopedia should pat itself on the figurative back for addressing. It's Chrismukkah week and I don't have time to do it within the running time of this AfD but deletion would not be supported.  Query whether this nomination is focused on actual deletion criteria or just WP:IDONTLIKEIT (for some undisclosed reason). -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  19:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting perspective on it. I created the page and am sympathetic to the reasons for its deletion. As per nom there's a lot that the page doesn't represent as accurately as it should. It would benefit from having an experienced editor do a rewrite - there's another "hint" for you. I think "crocheted bikini" is probably the right title.Bangabandhu (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Julietdeltalima. One can check all the other AfD's of the day (or any other day) to verify that this nomination is elaborately and extensively presented. Alexslater86 has gone far beyond the duty of a nominator to support their proposal, so no case can be made for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But to accuse the nominator of having some "undisclosed reason" (i.e. motive) is not just rude but a violation of WP:AGF. -The Gnome (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Almost all the sources are about the litigation concerning the trade mark for this bikini type. The subject itself does not appear to have much of a notable profile of its own. Perhaps, we should await the legal resolution. -The Gnome (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: As The Gnome noted above, the parties involved, particularly the eponym of this article, Kiini, do not have much notability outside of this very specific stint. The sources take a very clear position and act as judge, jury and executioner without any legal consensus on the matter—which is likely quite a way out, and may never be public if the proceedings end in a confidential settlement. In the interim though, the sheer existence of this article attributes the creation of a brand, company and trademark to an individual who the owner of said company is alleged to have taken from. This sort of misinformation harms both of the parties involved—at a minimum, the NY Times piece(s) do not make the mistake of calling Kiini a creation of Maria Solange Ferrarini, and this is not in the slightest bit unclear. Kiini remains a business, trademark and brand—which happens to be involved in unresolved legal proceedings.
 * There are hundreds of cases like this in the fashion world (particularly in fast fashion - e.g. Fashion Nova vs. the haute couture brands they are alleged of copying ), but no one would make the leap of creating a Wikipedia article entitled Fashion Nova and refer to it as a design concept (as opposed to a business and brand), and say it was created by Gianni Versace.
 * To further clarify on The Gnome's latest comment, the litigation chronicled across the sources is not about trademark infringement, but rather alleged copyright infringement, pertaining to a style of bikini that has no specific name other than a general descriptor of "crochet bikinis." Ferrarini's copyright application was filed under Ferrarini Bikiini and has absolutely no claim to the term Kiini.
 * In light of the above, any admins reviewing this should understand that the article nominated for deletion creates more problems than it solves—it consists of more inaccuracies and unresolved claims than objective truths, particularly because the truths are yet to be proven and disclosed.
 * One final point worth reiterating to conclude: Kiini is a brand. Maria Solange Ferrarini is a designer of crochet bikinis from Brazil whose lawyers allege is the victim of copyright infringement for her designs (with no final conclusion yet). The article attributes Kiini directly to Ferrarini, as though she created it. This is objectively untrue with no room for misunderstanding—it simply is false. On all of these grounds, I feel the page should be removed. Alexslater86 (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to new page I've created the page crochet bikini which can address all forms of the crochet bikini. The page is a bit disjointed right now as much of its content was taken from the existing kiini entry. I would make the redirect right now, but don't know what etiquette is for when there's an existing AFD discussion underway.Bangabandhu (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: My staunch issue with going this route is the fact that this is such a specific case in a sea of hundreds of other players in the swimwear space (even in the crochet swimwear space). It has been an established style from well before Irgit and Ferrarini entered the space. To have the entire lead section of that page remain so specific does more damage (to both of them) than good, in light of the fact that they are embroiled in litigation. The introduction also incorporates unproven facts that are still, indisputably, allegations at the current time, no matter how cut and dry the NY Times piece seems, it's still very clear that nothing is proven. Perhaps if this page existed it would need to remain more general to remain neutral, at the very least, in the introduction. Alexslater86 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Crochet bikini covers all crochet bikinis, including kiini, the Brazilian one that preceded it, and other versions of crochet bikinis before and after these. If you think there's undue weight on one version, you should discuss it on that page. The important point is that it resolves confusion over kiini as a trademark versus kiini as a type of swimwear. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Bangabandhu, I think it's going to need some serious editing to be neutral and accurately reflect what are indisputable facts vs. what are allegations, but it can work with some edits. We can reconvene the discussion over there. Is "moving" the page an option? Or must it be a redirect? The former seems more appropriate, if viable. Alexslater86 (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to moving the talk section on kiini, it will be retained under the kiini entry, which should have a redirect. If you're referring to moving the content of the kiini entry, I've already moved it and added additional text appropriate to crochet bikini. We can start talking about changes to that page in that talk section. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the proper method of "converting" the existing Kiini page to crochet bikini without redirecting it (i.e. 'moving' the page / renaming it). A redirect implies that the crochet bikini page is an accurate summary and result for someone looking up Kiini, which it is not intended to be—as discussed, crochet bikini is intended to cover the broader subject matter and design concept. It does mention Kiini (and other brands), which is fine. That said, I still feel the Kiini page we're currently dealing with should be deleted. My issue is one of neutrality. Otherwise, following this logic, pages for Ferrarini, PilyQ / Platinum, and all the other brands mentioned on crochet bikini should be created and then ultimately redirected to crochet bikini (...I hope you can see the point I'm making—is redirection doesn't make sense as it still perpetuates the blurring of lines between the brand name and the design concept). Alexslater86 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirects are common when the topic doesn't merit its own entry or can be contained in a broader entry, which can be the case for any number of reasons and is appropriate here. So yes, you're right, Ferrarini, PilyQ, etc. could all redirect to crochet bikini. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Crochet bikini seems like a good solution. As noted, redirecting individual brands to an article about the type is fine and common - after all, if the reader doesn't know the term for the type (which I suspect is fairly likely with "crochet bikini") they will probably search for a specific brand. Which should then land them at the appropriate general topic. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Crochet bikini. This dispute is clearly notable, but the notability of the name of this one particular product is less-well-established.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: in the event of further notability of any of the parties involved (e.g. Ferrarini, Kiini, PQ Swim) that warrants their own company article on Wikipedia, what happens when there's already a redirect from one of them to this crochet bikini page? Also (genuine question), why is deletion of this page, while allowing crochet bikini to exist without a redirect/merge not a viable solution? In the event of that scenario, the contents would still exist on crochet bikini chronicling the story, but there would not be undue weight on any party. The sheer creation of this page under the title Kiini was a misrepresentation from the beginning, which is what I want to cast light on, and redirecting users still gives that original misrepresentation some validity. Alexslater86 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The point here is to make things useful for the reader. You shouldn't be required to know the abstract type term for something you want to look up, you should be able to enter a connected term you know (e.g., a specific brand of that type) and get your information. Making such searches easy is the function of redirects. Further, redirects don't have to conform to our notability criteria; e.g., we redirect non-notable actors to notable films all the time, precisely because people might look for "that film that had actor X in it" but actor X is not sufficeintly notable himself. I don't know where you get those concerns about undue representation from. Redirects do not convey anything of the kind. - As for what happens when the company becomes notable later: just replace the redirect link on the page with actual article text. E.g., here is an article that was just expanded from a redirect, by someone porting material from another language wiki. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:50, 9 January 2020 (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.