Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice in Wonderland dress

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. further discussion of merging can continue on the relevant talk page if needed Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Wonderland dress[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)

I am feeling a bit like vandalistic or sacrilegious, but really, Alice's dress? I did some googling, and it is sold in zillions, beating Pirate's costume 2x, or remarks in passing that someone was wearing the AiW dress, but I failed to find any reasonable texts about it. In any case, it is 100% original research of dubious trthiness deserving to be nuked. If Alice's fans rescue it, I am all for it, but where have they been before? ... Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed position based on massive improvements - great work, Alarichall!) Delete It's kind of amusing to look at its Talk page - editors have been saying for years that they didn't understand why it was an article. I came across a source that I thought would surely discuss it (The Dress of the Book: Children's Literature, Fashion, and Fancy Dress) but it only had a brief discussion of Alice's dress. I think it's now become iconic, but it isn't notable. Schazjmd (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland). The article is insufficiently sourced, but whatever there is to say about the topic that is sourced can be said in the article about the character. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia took a brief side trip down the rabbit hole in 2008. The "sources" are risible. Hah, I finally got to use that word. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I suppose there's enough there worth adding to the main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anything worth noting about the dress can be included in the main article on Alice. There is no justification for a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This is not a very timely deletion request, as an academic monograph, much of which is on this very topic, has just come out: Kiera Vaclavik, Fashioning Alice: The Career of Lewis Carroll's Icon, 1860-1901 (London: Bloomsbury, 2019) ISBN 9781474290388. I've also done some editing of the entry to provide academic references for some of the poorly referenced material and to add some of the academic coverage of the subsequent influence of Alice's dress. I think the article now meets the notability criteria of WP:GNG. So I hope we might see a case here for WP:HEY. But if not, let's recognise that there's significant material here that deserves to be merged rather than deleted. Alarichall (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland). The dress may not deserve an individual article, but could qualify for a section in an article about the fictional character. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+

Keep It meets WP:GNG, with sufficient independent, reliable sources with significant coverage already in the article. In addition, the book which Alarichall added has a survey on page 5 [1] of the scholarly attention given to Alice's dress, naming as sources works about Sir John Tenniel by Simpson (1994), Morris (2005), Engen (1991) and Hancher (1985); and works about the history of childhood and children's costume by Roe (1959), Ewing (1977), Stuart (1933), Nunn (1984), and Brooke (1930), which could be followed up and added to the article. They also show that there has been sustained coverage of Alice's dress. Schazjmd said above that "it's now become iconic, but it isn't notable", but the extent of coverage indicates that it is indeed notable, and has been considered worthy of writing about by many authors over a long period. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion to see what people's views are since the article has been improved
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per Metropolitan90. Hispring (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after substantial improvements in referencing made by Alarichall and RebeccaGreen. The monograph by Kiera Vaclavik is "plainly non-trivial coverage"(to borrow the description from the GNG) of the subject. Vexations (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, really. Andrew D. (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improvements made since the article was nominated for deletion [2] give it ample referenced material. Passes WP:GNG. Dream Focus 23:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets WP:GNG, with sufficient independent, reliable sources with significant coverage already in the article. Regarding merging this article I submit that WP:Not paper covers that proposal.Lubbad85 (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets WP:GNG 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article is already better than most of the garbage that survives AFD. I find it suspicious that an article on this topic showed up so soon after a book on the topic was published, with said book being basically advertised by the article's text, but that's a matter for fora other than AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the article existed long before the book did... Not that I have a problem with Wikipedia articles being written hot on the heels of academic research being published. Alarichall (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.