Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.192.84.101 (talk) at 17:16, 21 October 2013 (→potentially useful source(s): dubai store, plus some new potentially-useful factoids). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fashion Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Notes on how to get the wikipedia article on Duchamp London properly written

(Update -- thanks to User:Racconish, the article is once again no longer one sentence. Furthermore, is now has correct tone, and some citations. The message below is still valid, but is now about *keeping* the article proper, going forward -- the difficulties in simply getting it expanded from a single vestigial sentence have now been solved.) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, folks. I see that you've had an article here for quite some time now, and are about to survive a request that your page be deleted. That means you are Notable by wikipedia standards; congratulations!

However, if you want to get your article beyond one sentence, which it has been stuck at since 2010 when you had a mild edit-war with one of the regulars around here, there are some things you need to understand. First of all, just because *you* know something is true, does not mean that it belongs in wikipedia. We like things that are reliably sourced: printed in newspapers, fashion magazines, or (*very* rarely) in blogs of Very Important People In The Industry. We also like things that are on television, on the catwalk at important fashion shows, and worn by Notable Persons for Notable Reasons, such as Olympians for their events. Winning awards, being written up in entrepreneurial magazines, getting funding from venture capitalists, and other sorts of things are also Notable by wikipedia standards.

Some concrete examples, from the clothing industry:

• Arne_&_Carlos -- this is a stub article, with one sentence. They won an award. Okay. But not great. You've won an award too, been around longer, had mention in books/magazines/etc. Your article can be more than one sentence. But it cannot be fluff. It has to be facts. What sort of facts? Well, that brings us to example two, and example three.

• London_Fog_(company) -- here is a reasonably dry corporate bio, the sort of thing that is almost always acceptable for wikipedia. Notice, there is little mention of The Greatest Trenchcoat Of All Time (even though London Fog is pretty cool), and the places they *do* claim popularity, are citation-needed. You should start with something straightforward, like this; try to avoid any citation-needed stuff. Behold, it is not at all like a press-release, or advertising-copy, or razzle-dazzle. Just The Facts is the best way to get started.

• Speedo_International_Limited -- here is a significantly-good article, with plenty of sources, some encyclopedic photos, and a reasonable explanation for why the company is notable. You will also note, that this article is a lot more pleasing and customer-friendly. But it takes hard work to make an article this good, and lots of reliable independent sources. This is still Just The Facts, but better, more grand.

I have written up some notes, criticizing an article in the music industry. It is similar enough to your situation, that you might find helpful. See over here -- Talk:Dom_(musician)#History_of_Dom. Unfortunately, it is a huge WP:WALLOFTEXT. But most of the problems you have been having, are also problems that folks were having over at this band's article, so I urge you to skim through. No need to take detailed notes, just try to get a feel for how corporations are advised to interact with wikipedia.

I will post a message on the talkpages of the various IPs that have been editing here from time to time this month; please put your replies here, on this article-talkpage, however, so that they will be easy to find for anybody interested in improving the Duchamp article. One question that is reasonably important: what is the official name of the company? Is it not Duchamp London, rather than simply Duchamp, nowadays? Looking forward to working with you, on getting this article properly done, and ready to stay that way, this time around. If you reply here, and nobody responds promptly, please put a note on my personal talkpage, to remind me. Thanks. You can say anything, or ask anything, here on this article-talkpage. Only the *main* article has to be wikipedia-quality information for encyclopedia-readers. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Some additional details, needs sources

This is some info pulled from the edit-history, which needs confirmation by a source. Much of it is suitable for WP:ABOUTSELF, methinks, so if one of the anons making edits for the company responds to my queries, we can probably put much of this material back into the article quickly.

Misplaced Pages's diff is horrid, so I'll copy most of the important stuff here, with task-numbering where needed.

1. ...cufflinks... (originally imported from France
2. but later always produced in Birmingham)
3. and other men's accessories.
4. The company branched in 1992 (or 1994) into textiles,
5. primarily silk ties
6. (handmade in Suffolk England),
7. with characteristic bold colours and "futuristic" designs.
8. The founder's wife Rion joined the company in 1994,
9. when the shirts
10. and scarves were introduced.
11. Jacobs established a wholesale trade and
12. opened in 1998 (or 1994)
13. In 2001 or 2002, Marc Psarolis was hired as Sales Director,
14. and the company began selling shirts.
15. In 2006 (or 2005),
16. the founder retired,
17. That same year, Marc's wife Alison became Design Director,
18. and the company opened a 750-square-foot store
19. (with help from design firm Four IV) on Regent Street
20. and introduced a line of shirts.
21. The store won a Retail Interior award for “Best Small Store Design” in 2007.
22. 2009 saw the launch of jackets,
23. following earlier expansions into leather goods, swimwear, and underwear.
24. In 2010 or 2011, the company began selling 'ready-to-wear tailoring'.
25. As of 2013, the core product remains men's designer wear (primarily ties, dress shirts, and tuxedos)
26. but the company offers a full head-to-toe line of men's clothing (trenchcoats, scarves, socks, trousers, et cetera) for a variety of purposes.
27. Historical homepage, archived as of 2001 (contains shirts/ties/cufflinks)

Retail Partners

• Bloomingdales, United States
• Barney's, Japan
• David Jones, Australia
• Harrods, UK
• Harvey Nichols, UK
• John Lewis, UK
• Selfridges, UK
• the page at one time claimed some "larger retailers in ... France, Italy and Germany" but gave no details, or citations

Historical

• Dubai Mall (store)
• Canary Wharf, London, UK (store)
• Fenchurch Street, UK (store)
• Holt Renfrew, Canada (retail partner)
• Lane Crawford, Hong Kong (retail partner)

potentially useful source(s)

Corporate blog.

Looks good to me: 1 2 4 13 17 22 23 24 25 26. Racconish, do you agree? Added: 19 21.

Still needs work: maybe 3, definitely 5, prolly 6, definitely 7/8/9/10/11/12, definitely 14/15, maybe 16, definitely 18/20, prolly stores, definitely retail&historicalPartners. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a citation for factoid#19 and factoid#21, from the company that gives out the awards. So, it proves Duchamp won the award, but not how prestigious the award itself actually is. Here is a cite from DrapersOnline.com about some other company winning the year after. I've never heard of DrapersOnline ... are they considered a reliable source, for the fashion industry, as opposed to a blog? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Drapers is a reliable source, comparable to DNR. — Racconish 16:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so then Retail Interior Awards is thus prolly notable enough for a fashion article, and we have the Retail Interior URL saying that Duchamp won in 2007, and that Four IV helped, so cross of 19 and 21. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dubai store. Also, two refs below attest to the same store-opening, if Khaleej is no good. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

New factoid. "...Duchamp collections, which are present in over 350 stores across 35 countries." 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

New factoid. "...has employed some of the finest craftsmen in England and Italy to produce..." 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a factoid? This guy has a blog, and claims to be a Visual Marketing lecturer/consultant. Notable slash reliable? He wrote a short piece (with photo) about the Regent Street store back in 2012, saying "they don't normally do anything very interesting. However, we stopped in our tracks... to capture this little gem. What a relief to finally find something creative at this end of Regent street that grabbed our attention.... will keep an eye on these guys to see what they do next. Job well done we think." If source is notable, prolly can be condensed into a brief "According to Jonathan Baker, the Regent store window-display was becoming significantly more visually creative as of 2012." 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

when were shirts really introduced

with ties, see #4 above?

with Rion, see #9 above?

with Marc, see #14 above?

with sale, see #20 above?

See also #27, which proves shirts were being offered for sale as of September 2001, or earlier. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

adding 2001 homepage as WP:EL

Racconish, or anyone else, object to this? It seems to add a nice touch, but I'm not sure what policy applies (if any) about adding archived versions of the company's historical homepage.

p.s. Can somebody tell me what 'ready-to-wear tailoring' actually means? Is that just designer-jargon for 'normal clothes sold off a rack just like in walmart' or is it something else? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your use of the archived page verges on OR. I think it would be better to attribute an POV on the launch of the shirts. Tailoring is ambiguous here : it can either refer to the type of garments (suits, jackets and pants), which is already implied by ready to wear, or - in an editorialized way - to the quality grade. Too vague to keep, IMO. — Racconish 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(Agree on the vagueness of tailored-ready-to-wear.) As to the homepage, yes, I fully agree that the old homepage in no way settles the shirt-question. That is above in a separate question, and yes, using the homepage to answer the shirt-question crosses the line into original research (or is at least a dark-grey area). That said, I put this question into a distinct section about WP:EL (as opposed to WP:RS in the references section) in a separate question, because I think the old homepage is of historical interest. Not as a source being cited, just as a Unique External Resource Not Appropriate For Wholesale Reproduction Inside The Article. It gives a nice contrast with the current modern homepage (dotcom + ajax heavy + complex layout + tablet oriented design + evolving aesthetic). Do you think adding it as WP:EL adds usefully to the article, first, and then second, is it typical practice in other clothing business or fashion business articles to showcase their 'classic' products in this way? If not, maybe there is a reason, WP:NeverEmbarrassTheFashionCorporationWithTheirNowLongOutOfStyleWares, or equivalent?  :-)    — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not 'typical' and not very neutral. At this point, during AfD, I would suggest focusing on adding quality reliable sources. — Racconish 16:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Robinovitz was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Stub-Class fashion articles
• Low-importance fashion articles
• Stub-Class Brands articles
• Unknown-importance Brands articles
• WikiProject Brands articles