Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AREA (fashion label)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AREA (fashion label)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Possible failure of WP:NCORP some of the claims are Celebrity X wore it here. Also the others seem to be puff pieces and nothing substantial Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Fashion. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received widespread coverage since 2019. Meets GNG and WP:NCORP- look at the Women’s Wear Daily coverage. Thriley (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The NY Times article is about more than just what Taylor Swift wore.We likely have GNG with the NYT and the Women's Wear article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't know about the full uppercased title, but deletion seems improbable given the sources mentioned above (and per Taylor Swift, who might not agree that it should be lowercased). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Leaning toward delete at the moment. I removed a couple egregiously inappropriate statements of the "so-and-so wore something to this event" variety. Even discounting those, though, mainly what I'm seeing is stuff in trade publications, which are kind of suspect in terms of demonstrating notability. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I restored those sources. You should be discussing article improvements on the talk page not in the middle of an AfD which is topic-based ie. is this topic notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its an article in the New York Times about the company. Really unsure why you would remove that. Did you even look at the cited article? Thriley (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage. Vogue wrote all about them. https://www.vogue.com/article/area-new-york-fashion-week-profile How the Upstart Label Area Wrote a New Kind of American Fashion Success Story By Steff Yotka September 6, 2019. That and other coverage found, proves this article meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 16:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The problems are with the article not the subject. In addition to sources in the article, a quick google search on their use of crystals turns up plenty.[1][2][3] As a note for other editors, check the article's history; someone is reverting the addition of sourced content to the article as off-topic. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2024 (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.