Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pale blue Christian Dior dress of Charlize Theron


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Pale blue Christian Dior dress of Charlize Theron

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Being mentioned as a contender (and not even winner or near-winner) in a single poll does not make a dress notable. There is not enough coverage of this dress to meet the WP:GNG. Compare to the level of coverage for White floral Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn or Red Versace dress of Cindy Crawford, which each have a half dozen sources. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ  Wha?  22:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also up for deletion in this AfD:


 * Red Versace dress of Catherine Zeta-Jones
 * White Christian Dior dress of Gisele Bündchen
 * Giorgio Armani mermaid dress of Anne Hathaway
 * Navy Monique Lhuillier mermaid dress of Kristen Stewart
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ   Wha?  22:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete on all. All of them do not meet the WP:GNG. There is likely to be trivial mentions of virtually every dress worn at the Oscars. Perhaps the dresses merit a single line in the main pages of the actresses, but no merge is necessary for that. mikeman67 (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I have stood up for at least one of the good doctor's dress articles (perhaps more than one), but I think these ones don't quite pass the bar. Note Sven, you have the Red Versace of Ms. Zeta-Jones listed twice. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks kelapstick. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ   Wha?  01:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all - most are stubs based on a single source (often gossip-mag-type sources) and don't come close to being notable in their own right. There are plenty of individual items of clothing that are notable but these aren't in that category, in my view. In many cases, the coverage relates to deportment, attitude and accessories as much as it relates to the dress itself. Stalwart 111  23:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reason this couldnt have a mention on Theron's page or Dior's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali88 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep/Merge If the details of these particular dresses seem to slight, there are still alternatives to deletion. For example, it seems easy to find entire books about the fashion which is displayed at the Academy Awards: Made For Each Other: Fashion and the Academy Awards; Star style at the Academy Awards: a century of glamour.  Perhaps we could have a general article about this fashion parade?  Our editing policy indicates that we should try to make something of this. Andrew (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Alternatives to deletion" has a limit, and isn't a backdoor around notability. I can't see what's in that book, but the promotional summary seems to indicate that it focuses on specific items of clothing, in which case it can be used as a source for those specific items of clothing. Its existence does not justify the coverage of dresses that aren't covered. If there are multiple sources that provide substantial coverage of one of these dresses in specific (not fashion of the red carpet, not fashion of that year, etc.), that dress meets the notability guideline and can have a stand-alone articles. If not, we can shuffle trivially covered items around in any number of article configurations, but it's still not going to get around the fact that they're trivially covered. For that reason, I disagree very strongly with your interpretation of the editing policy. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ   Wha?  05:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your interpretation is incorrect. Notability says if the list subject is notable "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" so it's clear you can combine non-notable articles into a list as long as the list is as a whole about a notable topic. "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been", so it would be ok to include dresses that weren't in the book. That would justify a merge though not a keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think an article of the sort--given that it has reliable sources, could make a very good wikipedia article. :-) Bali88 (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete all, not notable in any reasonable encyclopedic sense. Wikipedia is not a gossip tabloid. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete/comment - We've had these discussions before - I am rather behind on doing the Red carpet fashion articles (mea culpa) but the long term plan was to merge these into the articles for their relevant years as I wrote them, like I did with Red Ben de Lisi dress of Kate Winslet, Elie Saab net dress of Halle Berry, etc. into Red carpet fashion in 2002 - I deliberately didn't include any of the nominated articles in the individual dresses section in Template:Red carpet fashion as they didn't appear individually notable enough, so yes, I guess I am saying delete. I've checked, and all the key info on each article here is merged into the rough working draft on my userspace apart from the 1999 Zeta Jones dress. Mabalu (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The one citation doesn't really do enough to establish any notability here, and I'd consider the threshold for notability to be reasonably high for an article of clothing. Ducknish (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all five per Ducknish. We need more than one citation per stub.  These would be subject to re-creation if somebody could find more coverage in reliable media. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 12 March 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.