Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 14:03, 2 February 2022

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. Richwales (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show

Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unsalvageable spam about non-notable show. Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Based upon talk page research here as well as my own inability to turn up any significant reliable source coverage that was not only promotional material from the lead-up to the event it appears this show is non-notable for Misplaced Pages. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - I was the one who originally complained about this article's neutrality at the help desk.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I now have referenced thoroughly and cited all sources (deleted the references which had nothing to do with the show). The article looks very different. Thanks Jasper Deng and ConcernedVancouverite - you are right. It does read better. Please review it for non-deletion. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y — Domenico.y (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I just would like to say that this article is taking up most of my time and I can't edit other articles without this matter being solved and corrected. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

• Keep: Now, after deleting the article and re-starting it again on 07:31, 25 September 2011, I have referenced thoroughly and cited all sources. It is a notable article.

Domenico.y (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

• Comment: I'm not sure any of those references are reliable. Google searches, blogs, LinkedIn, the organizatiion's website itself (which is the vast majority of the sourcing) are not reliable sources. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment and required action: I used that in addition: the organizatiion's website itself refers back to the other refrences in 'Press' because there are articles on the 'press' page which they have put up, Mark of the Beast. Should I take the organizatiion's website itself then? What is the consensus? Thanks Domenico.y (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

I have taken out the majority of the the organizatiion's website itself links now. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

• If the website has links to reliable sources, then using the reliable sources instead of linking to the website would be more appropriate. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete It's spam, albeit with some references. ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Admin,

Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show is a notable article, the show started in Australia (citing the references I have put, not many other fashion shows get this amount of press and post-press). And the show has changed the course of history for 2 famous Australian fashion designers' designs: Finetti and Lo Sordo.

ConcernedVancouverite said that he has researched and said I have not found "coverage that was not only promotional material from the lead-up to the event". That is why I put in references post show on ABC TV and The Fashion Consultancy after it happened. ABC TV is big in Australia. The fact that famous Australian fashion designers Finetti and Lo Sordo held a fashion show one month after the BBAC show at Australia Fashion Week with exactly the same prints that they collaborated with artists in the BBAC show, it is obvious that they took inspiration from the show, makes it noteworthy and reliable source. So there is the post-press in the form of art and fashion design collaborated for these 2 fashion designers. If Finetti and Lo Sordo want to neglect the BBAC show and give all credit to themselves, then ok but it is apparent through the course of this article, what happened. It is a bit less obvious in the text of this article, so how do I made that more obvious?

I have put in references in nearly each sentence, not just from the organisation's website, proving that the research is reliable and true. Explain to me why an article like this http://en.wikipedia.org/Vikki_Ziegler is not nominated for deletion in 2008 and I only came across this article in September 2011 and tagged it {{noteable}} because it makes claims that are not referenced and in my opinion, not true?

Assist me to improve the article please and save it from deletion. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

• Delete. It's spam. Changing a sentence from "The Sydney Morning Herald said" to "The Sydney Morning Herald interviewed Reichman and she said" changed the sentence from a lie into truth, but didn't make it any more appropriate for an encyclopaedic article, or to establish notability. There is nothing relevant to say about the Sydney Morning Herald's coverage, and ditto most of the other reliable references. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• ColinFine said that you were too biased of this article to edit it written up in your previous comments, then you are commenting on it's deletion?

• Keep the article but assist and help me with it please.

Are you an Australian? Can you cite a show which changed the course of history for 2 famous Australian fashion designers' designs: Finetti and Lo Sordo?

The SMH is a very tiny part of the article. The fact that the SMH mentioned it is a feat for the organiser. I was trying to establish notably with the article I created...

Are you an Admin? If so, how do you think I should change the article to make it salvageable? Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

• Keep Google news archive search reveals only one hit. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/designers-put-their-art-into-show/story-e6frg6nf-1225831959837 But check the official website, and they list and show screenshots of coverage they have gotten in the press. http://beingbornagain.net/buttons/Press.html Ample coverage has been found. Dream Focus 11:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

comment - supposed clippings and the like hosted on the subject's own website do not meet our standards of verifiability and reliable sourcing, in this era of Photoshop and Final Cut Pro. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Dreamfocus, the bulk of "coverage" on that page is event announcements, and some of the "coverage" there is not about the show itself, but the brand. Can you please highlight which specific coverage you feel is sufficient reliable source coverage to establish notability from that promotional page provided by the subject in question? Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – this is exactly why there must be 1) significant 2) reliable 3) third party coverage. Each part needs to be there. We don't take the subject's word for much at all. JFHJr (㊟) 00:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• So I'm to believe that every single newspaper and magazine shown there was simple photoshopped, and that all the references mentioned in the article quoting interviewers from various sources are all fake? That the only real one was the one I linked to, and the rest is just an elaborate scam? I just spend a few minutes searching various sources cited, and found their webpages slow loading, and they not archiving everything, or requiring you to pay to see their archive. The information in the article is referenced, its just not able to be confirmed by online sources. Dream Focus 01:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete This and a handful of other non-notable articles centered on Davina Reichman should probably go. Shockingly, they seem to have the same major contributors. WP:NN and WP:ORG both unambiguously indicate this particular article is not notable; a stand alone article on a non-notable subject is unencyclopedic. JFHJr (㊟) 00:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strong delete fails WP:GNG. 1 gnews hit which is its own website and nothing on a major Australian news website . long winded arguments trying to defend this article's existence indicate a conflict of interest. this is an issue as WP is being used as a vehicle to promote a non notable entity. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – anyone notice Being Born Again Show, previously deleted? Looks like this isn't the org's first chance. JFHJr (㊟) 07:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That was a speed delete which the administrator said was a Misplaced Pages:CSD#G8 case. That means it was just a broken redirect there, not an actual article. Dream Focus 08:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I had a look and did what I could for the article, and I don't think that the event is particularly notable. In particular, I am still concerned that there are so few sources available on the Manhattan show, and a lack of post-event sources for the Sydney one. That said, in the end the GNG requires non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, and I think it just gets through there. In particular, the articles in The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald are enough to meet the GNG, at least when combined with the Art Nation coverage. I'm not so impressed by The Wentworth Courier, as that doesn't really speak to notability for me, nor the Financial Times, but it does seem from the website there there may be other sources available offline. In all: it was worth bringing here, I don't think at the moment there is room for it to grow beyond the start that it is now, but I'm going with keep as it seems to be on the right side of the GNG. - Bilby (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2011 (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.