Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Christopher


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Christopher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

OK, let's get this sorted one way or the other. I've asked the creator to provide evidence of notability other than the films. Jordan Elway isn't notable just because her dad is, and only the You Again ref seems both notable and verifiable, although it needs a better source. Non-notable as it stands despite my request for more facts  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

i received permission fromMatthew Christopher Inc. to use the photos off his website and offer then to wikipedia per your copyright guidelines.

If you need proof of this. Let me know how to get the letter to you.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flubbadubba1956 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would recommend not using capital letters to make a point. It doesn't really make anything clearer and can sometimes make a post harder to read. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also recommend that you not bring up other articles, because the existence of other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) doesn't mean that another article should or shouldn't be on Wikipedia. But as far as the article from from Architectural Digest goes, that's not entirely advertising because while it is insanely brief it's a legit article from an established and long running magazine. I wouldn't necessarily consider it to be enough to really establish firm notability for someone, but then this AfD isn't about Lhuillier's notability. Arguing for or against her notability won't really help anything out when it comes to this AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

hi jim the offending material was mentioned by VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC). I will strike AFD and go to donate image page

thx

Flubbadubba1956 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I see some wedding announcements in major publications, including Out and The New York Times . The NYT article includes a bit of a bio. The Ames Tribune has a bio as well. Then, of course, there are about a million websites selling his dresses (none of which, naturally, meet our requirements for sourcing). Because the Ames Tribune is local and the other two are wedding announcements, I do not think these sources quite meet the standard listed at WP:BASIC. I would be willing to revisit my !vote if additional reliable, independent sources that cover the topic in depth could be produced. VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Are some of the comments above intended for the Monique Lhullier nomination? Anyway, I am also weak delete but I have a feeling there is possibly more out there. The article is just too weak though, and I don't see much in his press section where you'd think the best stuff would be... Mabalu (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Lots of hits when searching, but as I started to click through I didn't need to get past this one: Matthew Christopher Lookbook at Nordstrom. If he's carried not just by all those smaller shops but by a big national chain like Nordstrom that doesn't leave much question as to notability. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  22:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * can you rephrase your !vote in the context of our notability guidelines? I do not see how a website that sells this person's product meets the independence requirement of WP:BASIC. VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is always about sufficient significant coverage in independent secondary sources, but we have all sorts of shortcuts to come to that conclusion. For example, if a film or a book wins an award, notability isn't inherited from that award. To quote from WP:NBOOKS, "These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying books that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a book meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the book." In other words, they're shortcuts. Now, you would be correct to say there is no guidelines for WP:Notability (fashion), but that doesn't mean there aren't symbols we could agree on as indicators of the existence of significant coverage in secondary sources. Having a line sold -- and a "look book" featured -- at one of the biggest department stores in the US is one such symbol.


 * ...But to respond to your question: "Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG." See:
 * 5 page feature for Inside Weddings magazine
 * Vow Bride magazine(and here)
 * some local Minnesota magazine
 * collection in The Knot magazine
 * another profile in Inside Weddings magazine
 * interview for InStyle Weddings
 * piece in Modern Style magazine
 * Iowa State Daily piece on a little show there
 * Out Magazine
 * Iowa State story prior to a (different) visit
 * TheKnot.com (website for the magazine) covers his collection
 * many stories at HauteBride (a blog, but not an insignificant one)
 * And of course this doesn't even count the dozens of full fashion magazine pages featuring models wearing his stuff, sometimes a photospread of a whole collection or looks at a particular show (he is credited for all of these but indeed just a "mention" in notability terms, despite being important in the fashion world and the photo essentially being "about" his work) --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  05:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep/Comment Looking at Rhododendrite's links: a lot of them are pretty useless bits of fluff, or advertising/promo. I don't think we can use things like 2 which are really just picture blogs with a tiny bit of text or a very brief summary on that season's styles. HOWEVER... there are a few decent things among the fluff. This works for me as a source as although it's an interview, there is also a lot of commentary in the beginning. And this is also good for me because it has extensive detail about him and his life and work. The stuff on his wedding, such as this spread, is nice but about his wedding rather than him as a designer - although it does mention him doing the bridesmaid dresses. Both of the better sources are good - I think we need at least one other equally good source showing that his designing is notable, but I am no longer leaning delete on this, although I'm not sure I can argue for a keep too strongly either. Mabalu (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Some interesting points have been brought up here; I like Mabalu's analysis of the situation. I'll have to do some looking into what it would be that makes a fashion designer notable (and potentially change my !vote), but at the moment, he seems to me to marginally pass GNG.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This raises the question as to whether we need guidelines specifically tailored to determine a fashion designer's notability. Personally, I feel that if someone has work regularly featured in leading fashion magazines, or has their work regularly seen in high profile contexts,then that is a case for notability - even if there is very little readily accessible third-party coverage. Some of the more moderately successful fashion designers are often interviewed, but not often the subjects of third-party detached assessments/articles focused specifically on them, even though they may be quite well-known and highly respected in their field. I think Matthew Christopher is one such case. Mabalu (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was surprised there wasn't such a guideline at WP:WikiProject Fashion or elsewhere. What do you think about WP:Notability (designers) as a category of professionals who would have similar kinds of sourcing. (This is going off on a tangent, though -- maybe better for WT:N or WP:VPP? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  12:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think a slight modification to WP:CREATIVE would be adequate, and cleaner (not to mention easier) than a new guideline. Discussion of the proposal could happen at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). VQuakr (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, it seems WP:CREATIVE mostly covers this case as is - I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) for anyone interested. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2014 (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.