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. Consensus is that the sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Giorgio Armani dress of Cate Blanchett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines and will never grow beyond a stub. Better to merge into another article or perhaps omit entirely from our encyclopedia. Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My grief, there's articles on individual dresses being made now? *headdesk* Blatant WP:NOT violation, although what criteria it would fit (probably multiple ones), I'm not sure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Iconic white dress of Marilyn Monroe, yes; black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn, of course; Blanchett's, no. Call us back when the Armani is worth a few million dollars. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion. This could go in Red carpet fashion in 2007, like Red carpet fashion in 2000, etc. So could the garment below (in 2005). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOT and per nom. So much with this nomination including the listing of 'List of' articles dealing with red carpet fashion by year? And I thought the soap and Nick fans were known for their inane attention to detail. Nate • (chatter) 02:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A dress or other object of clothing can be a work of art as much as any work of art, and such objects are collected by major museums and are analyzed by scholars. Their interest is both artistic, and--like any other applied art form--sociological. I would say that any item of costume which enters the collection of a major general museum and is discussed in the literature is notable; I am less sure about those whose significance is only as elements of popular culture, unless they have been extensively discussed, not necessarily by academics, but serious non-fan discussion. As our coverage of these is only beginning , we should be careful in our selection. Having settled the general issue, the question is whether dresses whose main significance is being won by major stars at the Oscars are sufficiently important in the absence of serious curatorial or cultural discussion. Most of the dresses in this group, including this one, do not seem to me to be of great intrinsic merit, except for the circumstances in which they are worn-at least I see no references to academic discussions and analyses that would say otherwise. But the circumstance is which the dress and the other Oscar dresses are worn are circumstances of the highest possible significance in US popular culture , and that is sufficient. (I think there might be a certain degree of prejudice being expressed in these deletions, perhaps of the sort that items characteristic of some professions are not particularly significant--I base that on some of the expressions used (I agree it's not as important as her Valentino, but it's still important enough) DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable in fashion. However, merging some of these dresses into Red carpet fashion year articles might be a good idea. I'm sick of always having to do the expansion work of everything,♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for this specific dress, but with comments - As I said on the above AFD for the yellow Valentino, I really need to get back to doing the articles I started doing on Red Carpet Fashion by year, which would absorb some of the other minimally notable dresses for which we have individual articles. This particular dress does not have a huge deal of significance in itself, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Alberta Ferretti dress of Uma Thurman. I actually have the 2007 article in my sandbox at User:Mabalu/Red carpet fashion in 2007 and do already mention this dress there... Mabalu (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be a merge then wouldn't it, not a delete.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article to be merged into doesn't exist officially on mainspace yet, so not sure a merge vote is appropriate yet - I should finish it up and come back and change my vote once the article exists. Mabalu (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the yellow dress is definitely more notable than this one. I'd agree to a merge if a paragraph can be written about it there. We ought to have pages up for every year in Red Carpet fashion, that would cover most of them, I can give you a hand if you want. Coverage of these dresses is definitely notable but I'm not sure a lot of the more recent Oscar dresses are worthy of their own articles. You could probably compile a start class for a lot of them but a lot of them might start to look puffed up. I think a Red carpet fashion of... with a paragraph on the more notable dresses should suffice. And yes, these dresses are hardly on the level of the iconic dresses I started, but at the time of creation I thought it probably a good idea to try to improve coverage of a very poorly covered topic overall. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the criterion is whether they are discussed in the popular non-fan press in their own right, then a great many worn there are probably notable, and, as Dr. B says, you could compile a start -class article on them. How far we want to go on this is an interesting question, and I agree that combination articles may be the best place to start with. I'm reluctant to make a judgment on what ought to be important. DGG ( talk ) 13:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the reasons given above by DGG.--Ipigott (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Interesting subject and notable in fashion. Second that with reasons of DGG.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per DGG, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The content presented is backed by reliable sources and provides sufficient support such that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep again per DGG. Dresses are as much art as anything else can be. If reliable sources think it notable enough to cover, then we should as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Subject appears to pass WP:GNG, and is signifigant for being a work of article. I find Blofeld and DGG's arguments to be compelling. --LauraHale (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Since Red carpet fashion in 2007 now exists, I have merged a condensed version of the info (using the same sources) on this dress into that article. I think we could safely lose this article or redirect it without losing anything much, although it will clearly pass as a "keep" this time round. Mabalu (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Like -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This article can be easily expanded to include more information than what is in the more general article you created (thanks for that though). Silverseren^C 23:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per adequate coverage in RS. As with Yellow Valentino dress of Cate Blanchett A dress should be not inherently more or less notable. The dress has enough coverage to warrant its existence outside Red carpet fashion in 2007.Smallman12q (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling, though I am a fashion specialist, is that at this point, while there may be enough RS on individual Oscar dresses, at the end of the day, the vast majority are the object equivalent of WP:SINGLEEVENT as they are notable for a single event, and do not tend to have a life/notability beyond that event. They are covered and described and documented, yes, but very few receive in depth coverage or attention. For every swan dress of Björk, black Versace dress of Elizabeth Hurley, and green Versace dress of Jennifer Lopez, there are hundreds if not thousands of gorgeous frocks worn at these events, a couple of dozen which may be mentioned and reported on several times at the time, and afterwards, maybe one or two will be seriously remembered. This is one case where I think a few years' grace period is necessary before deciding what has remained notable and what was a flash in the pan, like, IMO, this particular dress. The general articles on red carpet fashion by year are a better place to start, as once the overviews are in place, then we can properly assess which ones have remained notable and may deserve their own article. I do see a very strong case for an article on Black Lanvin dress of Tilda Swinton from Red carpet fashion in 2008, but I will leave that for someone else to create, as I think we need general overviews more at this point. Mabalu (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2013 (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.