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. A close debate, but I don't see it leaning either way significantly. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spring 2004 Dior couture collection[edit]

Spring 2004 Dior couture collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a previous editor's PROD stated, a designer can obviously be notable, but individual shows/collections are not. I agree for the most part. If this show represented some sort of milestone or landmark in fashion design, I wouldn't find an article objectionable, but as it is, it appears to be just another show, no different from countless others that have received similar coverage but no Wiki articles. As a result, I don't see how this article has any more encyclopedic value than articles on a random political speech or rock concert the media commented on.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dior is a fashion heavyweight, but trying to rank designers/fashion houses by influence in order to decide whose collections all deserve articles and whose don't would be subjective. All collections by all notable designers should be allowed or none should be, and frankly, I don't feel Wikipedia needs hundreds or thousands of articles providing little more than aesthetic descriptions of clothing. The vast majority of these collections have no lasting significance. They're debuted in a fashion show and the media covers it only briefly—just like a news item. The "Further reading" section for this article demonstrates this; it's entirely composed of reviews written within a few days of the show (while the lone reference written later devotes only a single sentence to the collection in passing), clearly failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Not to mention, this article has been here for seven years and it has not spurred anyone into thinking more of them are needed.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could the article be renamed Dior couture collections, 2000s, and be kept without pruning? It would of course need expansion, but would that work? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)'[reply]
It would be better to cover the material in the main article on Dior. (There is a section titled "21st Century.") I wouldn't expect that any secondary source has covered the topic of the 2000s collections as a whole. Otherwise you would just be putting a bunch of non-notable articles together on one page. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter that the reviews/commentary happened immediately after the show—WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE very specifically states that events are generally not notable when this is the case, and Dior being "hugely important" does not refute that. Not to mention, relating fashion shows to movies is not an apt comparison. I just googled Black Swan and three and a half months after its US release it's still receiving coverage and will likely be continually referenced for years to come. That's what happens with films. With fashion shows, on the other hand, after just three and a half days the coverage is over. Just the fact that one can argue that this show was one of Galliano's most celebrated and yet in terms of continued coverage it's received one measly sentence years later goes to show that even the supposedly-renowned shows/collections do not have enough lasting significance to warrant an encyclopedic article.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE doesn't apply to aesthetic works. Sure, Black Swan is still receiving coverage, but many movies are not, and we don't demand that they do. (Inclusion is okay as long as "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.") If an art installation, for example, received full-length reviews from The Age, The Guardian, the New York Times (three reviews!), AFP, the Telegraph, and the New York Post, I don't think there would be a fight over whether it was notable. A movie also has a title for easy searching. Try going through these search hits to find all the relevant long-term coverage! There may be more, it will just be difficult to dig up. The most important industry publication, Women's Wear Daily, is also entirely behind a paywall, so it's possible there is more there. I'd concede that this coverage would probably be better if it were grouped with the other 2004 Dior collections (a la 2010 Stanford Cardinal football team, but I don't have the time to write that article right now, and to preserve information it's better to keep it where it is than delete it (and better to keep it where it is than merge it to Christian Dior S.A.). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE pertains to events, and that's what we're dealing with here. Sure, you can call it an aesthetic work and say that's all this is about, but the coverage is all of a fashion show. Why else would the sources make note of models used and celebrities who showed up? Why else would the coverage be linked to a very specific time frame? If this collection had not been released via a fashion show, would it have received any coverage? No. Clothing designers put out new lines all the time and the media pays no attention without the fashion show - without the event. In that sense, a clothing collection has no notability at all. The event is what garners the coverage and this event fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The article is titled "collection", and that's what is the most important point here. The event as such is of secondary importance. Lately you see more and more designers doing presentations rather than shows--see, e.g., this story. (Tom Ford had no problem getting people to review his collection, even though he did not have a "show" as such. Alexander McQueen's last collection wasn't in a "show", but it was in every paper imaginable.) If Christian Dior decided to present its next couture collection without a fashion show, reporters would still cover it. Fashion shows are simply the traditional way to "premiere" new collections. And major designers aren't just putting out lines willy-nilly. Designer clothing generally comes from two major collections per year (spring, fall), with adaptations from the runway. (There is also "resort" and "pre-fall" but these are generally commercial and not so directional--not where designers' big ideas go--and they generally receive little to no coverage.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More