Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Versace Suit and Harness of Lil Nas X

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. Aoidh (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Versace Suit and Harness of Lil Nas X[edit]

[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)

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Absent the coverage of the 2020 Grammies, there is no lasting coverage of this outfit. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red carpet fashion is its own category on Wikipedia, and there are plenty of individual outfits that have similar or much less coverage. See list of individual dresses Computer-ergonomics (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, Elie Saab net dress of Halle Berry has been up for years and has far fewer citations. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Computer-ergonomics: - OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but if @Onel5969 were to look in the article history for the Halle Berry article, they would find that discussions like these about the notability of outfits have been had, with the consensus being that it exists on a case by case basis, and often its importance can be gleaned through hindsight.

In this case, the outfit's coverage is NOT restricted to a single day of coverage.

Lil Nas X's Best Outfits Ever - Elle (August 2022)

Lil Nas X’s Style Evolution Is a Masterclass in Bright and Bold Fashion - E News (August 2022)

Lil Nas X'S Style Evolution is Full of Self-Actualization and Sequins - Elite Daily (August 2022)

Lil Nas X’s best fashion moments, as his debut album is set to drop - The Independent (September 2021)

I could go on. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable on its own. I would say merge but there is no suitable topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article fits all of WP:GNG as laid out here, it's just simply not as common for people to write articles on fashion - in theory this could be merged into a "red carpet fashion of 2020" article, but nobody has made an article like that since 2009 and I personally don't have time to make one. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the sources again, and this article appears to be well-sourced and notable. Keep. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Computer-ergonomics (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Oscars for that year (or whatever awards ceremony it was). Notability is only connected to that event; if it spawned a fashion trend where everyone started wearing it, I'd see keeping it as an article. Otherwise, it's only notable in relation to the awards. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was the 62nd Grammy Awards, which it says in the first sentence of the article. The articles for individual Grammy Award years do not have fashion sections, nor is there a Grammy Awards fashion category. It is very strange to me that you are voting on whether to keep, delete, or merge an article you apparently have not read about a topic you seem to not know anything about Computer-ergonomics (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for references that talk about the outfit, not the event. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This outfit has been continually reported on by the news for three years. I would appreciate the voice of someone who tends to edit fashion articles on this one because the guidelines are a bit murky and nobody in this thread seems to have a long history with editing in this category.Computer-ergonomics (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Computer-ergonomics — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per discussion above. I agree that this is, on the face of it, an obscure subject for an article, but references show there's persistent notability. Moonreach (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very well-sourced article. Furius (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while there are several mentions of the suit after the initial reporting, that's what they are, mentions. After the initial coverage, there is no in-depth coverage of the outfit, so the "enduring" aspect of WP:NOTNEWS is not met. None of the keep !votes address this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, Grammy Award winners have their outfits placed in the Grammy museum, which would have inspired another round of reporting for sure. However, the 62nd Grammys were not featured in the museum due to the COVID-19 pandemic. So unfortunately, the reporting legacy of this outfit was cut shorter than it would have been otherwise. Additionally, Lil Nas X himself has become such a style icon that there are hundreds of articles about his clothing. I personally chose to write an article about this one because I (and many other people interested in fashion) feel like this is a very interesting fashion turning point for him. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where WP:NOTNEWS says that enduring coverage requires that subsequent references be in-depth. It seems enough to me that there are subsequent references that identify an event as having been significant. Furius (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." - enduring notability, not enduring coverage, which means that the coverage needs to be significant.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are treating that section as setting a higher standard than it does. In context, it is saying that "routine coverage" of an event or person does not establish notability. But the contemporary sources cited in the article are not routine. They are in-depth coverage, like reviews of a movie published following its release.

Elsewhere, we have WP:SUSTAINED: "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability" (my emphasis); WP:NOTTEMPORARY: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage;" WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (which, again, speaks of continuing coverage). The last emphasises that the the point is to establish whether a topic is of "passing or lasting significance." In this case, we have later sources saying that it was of lasting significance in the world of fashion.

The notability guidelines do not require the existence of in-depth coverage over a number of years. Furius (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2023 (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.