Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WindowsWear


 * 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WindowsWear

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced promotional article fails WP:CORPDEPTH Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  02:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  02:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * KeepThis article does not fail WP:CORPDEPTH, please find below additional sources of coverage that prove notability. Each link is from a unique source and multiple mentions by the same source are not included.

Major Newspapers:

Women's Wear Daily: http://www.wwd.com/retail-news/marketing-consumer-behavior/holiday-selling-has-begun-7261670?src=search_links

Wall Street Journal: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:y9c01W4LVt8J:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424127887323981304579077430749525094&hl=en&gl=us&strip=0

Estadão (one of the largest newspapers in Brazil): http://blogs.estadao.com.br/moda/2013/01/11/site-reune-vitrines-das-principais-lojas-no-mundo/

O Globo (one of the largest newspapers in Brazil): http://ela.oglobo.globo.com/blogs/nova-york/posts/2013/10/11/namorando-as-vitrines-da-quinta-avenida-511261.asp

Major Fashion Publications:

ELLE: http://www.elle.com/news/fashion-style/windowswear-website-launch-holiday-windows?click=news

Glamour: http://www.glamour.com/fashion/blogs/slaves-to-fashion/2012/11/you-can-start-browsing-those-s.html

Lucky: http://contributors.luckymag.com/post/windowswear

Redbook: http://www.redbookmag.com/beauty-fashion/tips-advice/windowswear-window-shopping

Refinery29: http://www.refinery29.com/windowswear

Vogue (Mexico): http://http://www.vogue.mx/articulos/compras-en-linea-online-windows-wear/3268

ELLE (Russia): http://www.elle.ru/moda/novosty/Novyj-sajt-WindowsWear-iz-zhizni-vitrin

Glamour (Brasil): http://colunas.revistaglamour.globo.com/styleapproach/2013/01/11/windows-wear-o-google-earth-das-vitrines-de-moda/

Racked: http://racked.com/archives/2012/12/10/10-best-dreamworthy-holiday-windows-from-london-paris-new-york.php

Investment Publications:

FashInvest: http://www.fashinvest.com/windowswear-receives-friends-family-financing-one-year-anniversary/

Travel Publications:

Time Out New York: http://www.timeout.com/newyork/things-to-do/windowswear

Speaking / university engagements:

Fashion Institute of Technology: http://www.fitnyc.edu/7894.asp

LIM College: http://www.limcollege.edu/news/13286.aspx

Berkeley College: http://lgdata.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/docs/1516/905685/Newsletter_Oct13_v1_3.pdf

Celebrity followers:

Sofia Vergara (A+ list celebrity): https://twitter.com/SofiaVergara/following

Christian Louboutin (famous women's shoe designer): https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151618249826865&set=a.10151618244406865.1073741829.124842316864&type=1&theater

Stefano Gabbana (founder of Dolce & Gabbana): http://www.oninstagram.com/profile/following/stefanogabbana

Independent Fashion Publications:

NewNowNext: http://www.newnownext.com/windowswear-is-the-greatest-thing-to-ever-happen-to-window-shopping/04/2013/

StyleBistro: http://www.stylebistro.com/Shopping+News/articles/IKU-NRPtrXa/WindowsWear+Like+Giant+Tumblr+Shop+Windows

HauteTalk: http://www.hautetalk.com/2012/12/10/cocktail-hour-link-love-3/

The London Look: http://thelondonlook.com/fashion/windowswear-visual-merchandising-gets-social-media-treatment/

The Style Note: http://thestylenote.com/2012/12/13/noteworthy-008/

Fashion Pulse Daily: http://fashionpulsedaily.com/2012/12/12/see-holiday-windows-from-home/

StyleDemocracy: http://styledemocracy.com/ever-wanted-to-see-the-best-holiday-windows-in-the-world/

Digital Style Digest: http://www.digitalstyledigest.com/2012/12/display-mode-windowswear-takes-window-shopping-digital/

Camille Styles: http://camillestyles.com/christmas/weekend-notes-143/

Morena Rosa: http://www.morenarosa.com.br/blog/cultura-e-viagens/as-vitrines-pelo-mundo/

N Degrees: http://www.n-degrees.com/#!WindowsWearcom--/c36c/019D0FB9-1E19-47DD-AEAB-C029918F4620

Fashion Reverie: http://fashionreverie.com/?p=5888

Dalabooh: http://www.dalabooh.com/windowswear-the-number-one-resource-for-real-time-inspiration/

Trend Survivor: http://trendsurvivor.com/2013/12/18/holiday-shopping-paris/


 * Keep This doesn't fall in with my reading of grounds to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. It has mentions in national and international sources, including reliable media. Note that it was previously prodded by same editor. Several editors appear to have been working to improve and lose the promotional and WP:NPOV stuff and, as it's a new page about a relatively new company that has some sound references, I'd suggest allowing this process to continue for a bit in the spirit of WP:CHANCE. Libby norman (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Response Hi Libby, thanks for your comments. WP:CORPDEPTH looks for independent, in-depth, coverage in reliable sources. Most of the sources listed above are just "mentions"--how do you see that fitting in WP:CORPDEPTH?  I'd also question the reliability and independence of many of the above sources.  With regard to the point that I previously PRODded this article, in case you didn't know it is pretty standard to take something to an AfD if it is dePRODded.  In this case, it was dePRODded by the author of the article.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Response All the articles from major fashion publications are not just mentions, WindowsWear is the subject matter of the full article. These are all major fashion publications and I am not sure how many more different major fashion publications are necessary to make it notable.  Fashion is a visual field and the depth comes from the amount of content from images vs. content from text and words.  These are all full page articles and these publications don't talk about un-reputable / un-notable subjects.  In addition there are mentions from national and international sources, reliable media, as well as reputable speaking engagements, and a celebrity public following.  If you do not believe that the depth of coverage is adequate, then by the definition of WP:CORPDEPTH: " If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability."  This is proven in the above where multiple independent sources are cited.  In regards to WP:CHANCE, "the original editor spends all his (limited) time trying to fight the deletion of the article. He is reluctant to make the edits that would change the minds of those recommending delete (assuming they even choose to revisit the article or discussion, which often doesn't happen) because he does not want to put so much work into an article if it's just going to wind up being deleted. So instead he spends his time on the deletion discussion explaining his position, and tries to convince others that he does indeed have verifiable information on the subject." - I believe this applies directly this is situation and would appreciate if you could allow this process to continue in the spirit of WP:CHANCE. 199.47.72.52 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Response Hello, unknown IP! I did not say that all the articles from major fashion publications are just mentions.  I asked how this fits WP:CORPDEPTH.  Which publications are major?  Which are not just mentions?  What I see above is a long list with a lot of junk, such as Sophie Vergara's twitter.  Let's see some specifics.  As for WP:CHANCE, this seems to involve reading the mind of the original editor.  I'm not qualified to do that.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Response Hi Logical Cowboy, thanks for your comments above. Sources listed are not 'passing mentions' by my definition. In 4 of the 8 references listed (Elle, Time Out, Glamour, Lucky), WindowsWear is the subject of the piece – actually 6 out of 8 if you count the two lesser quality refs of Refinery29 and Fashinvest. The Wall Street Journal is a good solid ref for establising names of the founders and the existence of the company, albeit a paragraph in a piece about life after Lehman Brothers. WWD – also a respectable business-facing source – gives us a 100-plus word paragraph in a piece on Christmas window displays, in which one of the company founders is used as a commentator on trends for Christmas display timings. Back to WP:CORPDEPTH and I'm struck by the fact that this suggests that if coverage is not substantial 'then multiple independent sources should be cited'. I'd say WindowsWear does provide multiple sources via these 8 references – enough to support the existing article. Libby norman (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Response Added Vogue (Mexico) as an additional source. MickeyMouse5349 (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 18:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)




 * Thanks Northamerica1000 but it seems like consensus is reached, everyone wants to keep the article and several other editors have even been supportive in their time and efforts making enhancements to the original article. Logical Cowboy who started the deletion process hasn't been active in this discussion for the past 10 days, and I'm not sure if more time will result in more discussion.MickeyMouse5349 (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is something funny going on with voting. An IP tagged Mickey's earlier comments with a Keep vote .  Now Mickey is voting Keep (again?) .  This seems like double voting/ballot stuffing/WP:ILLEGIT.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Response. Hi Logical Cowboy, my intention was not to vote twice, rather to just reiterate support. I removed the duplicate Keep.  Thank you.MickeyMouse5349 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Then why did you claim there is a "consensus?" Only three editors have opined.  One is you, who created the article and have been tagging Wikipedia left and right to promote WindowsWear.  Clearly you have a strong interest in promoting this site.  Another is me, and I nominated it for deletion.  It's worth reading WP:CONSENSUS.  Since this debate was relisted due to lack of consensus, there haven't been any new policy-based arguments presented, or any additional editors involved.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks Logical Cowboy, I would like to know what is your definition of nobility for an organization is in the global fashion industry - maybe that would be a path forward to understanding what the issue is. This company is featured in Vogue, ELLE, Glamour, Lucky and according to Wikipedia, these are all notable fashion magazines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fashion_magazines. These publications do not cover un-notable organizations and their notability threshold is extremely high.  There is further evidence supporting notability in features / mentions in notable newspapers and other notable publications (which are also notable because they all have Wikipedia pages) like The Wall Street Journal, WWD, The Estadão, Redbook, Refinery29, O Globo, Time Out New York - I do not understand what more evidence you need.  I have also seen you reach out to another editor asking to opine directly in this deletion discussion - why do you have such a strong interest in deleting this article and reaching out directly to others about it when other editors have made positive contributions to this article and support it? MickeyMouse5349 (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Response Your comments are misleading in many ways. The Lucky source is a community-contributed blog.  Most of the other sources are 100-word blurbs announcing the creation of the website--basically that it exists.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Response Notable publications listing "that it exists" - so this should be consistent as to why it should also exist on Wikipedia. 100-words may seem little to you but it is a tremendous amount of text for a fashion publication. Further, it is the depth of visual imagery with text that also counts that you are not weighing as evidence. Coverage is measured in both text and visuals and both are comprehensive. I asked you what is your definition of nobility for an organization is in the global fashion industry so others can understand your perspective. It could be, for instance, that you place no value on the notability of being featured by numerous, notable fashion publications globally that are cited as evidence, because it seems like this evidence is being dismissed and denied, and the other non-fashion related evidence seems to not be taken into consideration in providing a more in-depth perspective in the notability of this subject. MickeyMouse5349 (talk) 02:01, 31 January 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.