Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Charvet customers (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Charvet customers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-encyclopedic listing of customers of one particular fancy shirtmaker with maximum snob appeal. Prior AfD closed as "no consensus"; has become no more encyclopedic in the meantime, and continues to provide no informational value except to stroke the egos of Charvet and its customers. If Charvet wants to brag about its customers, they can do so on their own website. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)  Orange Mike  &#x007C;  Talk  00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I was prepared to dislike it too, until I actually looked at the list and was shocked to see how well sourced it is.  And not to some self-serving Charvet press release, but in many cases to biographies, newspapers of record such as The New York Times and Le Figaro...plus annotations in many instances commenting on the subject's choice of Charvet clothing.  Really this is better developed than most lists on Wikipedia.  The fact is that multiple reliable sources have taken note of who has been a Charvet customer.  So I don't see a reason to delete here.  postdlf (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Mentioning one or two notable customers at Charvet Place Vendôme or at their own articles is justifiable if they are demonstrably representative either of the organisation's clientele or of the type of people who wears such clothes, or if their wearing of Charvet is a notable feature of their personality. However, is it necessary to mention every Charvet customer who happens to have an article on WP?  Claret Ash  09:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator seems to think its ok to use Wikipedia to tell us that he likes wearing orange. Coverage of clothing and fashion in neglected on Wikipedia and it shouldn't just be a place for trainspotters and other geek stuff.  The article has a good historical perspective and is well sourced.  It seems to be a spinoff from the main article Charvet Place Vendôme and so the worst case is that we just merge back into that article.  Deletion is therefore inappropriate per our deletion and editing policies. Warden (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is an example of what happens when we follow an idea through to its logical conclusion. Yes, the article is a well-sourced spinoff with good historical perspective but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a mere list of customers. Am I the only one laughing at the ludicrousness of it all? I used to run a Subway store occasionally visited by local celebrities, and one of my co-workers went on to run a Subway once visited by Lady Gaga; should I create a List of Subway customers? I already know where to find reliable sources. Jokes aside, though, the fact that a reliable source exists is no reason for the content of that source to be added to WP. Notability is first asserted, then verified. This article appears to do the opposite, sources have been asserted regardless of whether there is any notable topic to which they can be attached.  Claret Ash  13:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The notable topic is Charvet, and all of the customers listed are notable. So in my view, the only question remains whether this is trivia or valuable information about Charvet at a minimum, or about Charvet and its customers.  If article size were not an issue, for example, would we want this list in the Charvet article?  If so, then its split-off is merely a formatting decision, and we don't gain anything by insisting upon the independent notability of this list, whatever that would mean (though there apparently are multiple reliable sources giving significant coverage to who wears Charvet judging from the list's sources).  It's quite a bit more selective than a list of Subway customers given that any schmoe with $5 can buy a sub, and they have over 35,000 locations worldwide, so that's not an apt comparison.  Nor do I think you'll find sources stating that certain notable people only eat at Subway in the same way that you'll find notable people who only wear Charvet shirts, but you're welcome to surprise me.  postdlf (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and even with something as ubiquitous as a fast food chain, we do sometimes even note in a highly notable subject's article that they eat there. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Spinoff focusing on 4 groups of notable customers meaningful to the article on Charvet and specifically treated by reliable sources, either on the persons or on the company. RacconishTk 06:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per RS coverage, amply reflected in article.  I personally don't care about this, but we follow the RSs, and not subjective views as to what they (and, in turn, we) should view as notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Last time around I said to delete, but I've rethought this. In the case of famous purveyors such as these, the list of famous clients is sufficiently important and interesting to be encyclopedic contents. If we go by the GNG, the article is supported.  I think similar lists for a few fashion houses might be acceptable also, but I continue to be a little concerned about how far this could be carried.   DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 30 October 2011 (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.