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 delete. without prejudice towards a redirect Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fashionista (term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Solitary reference to the Urban Dictionary is a better nomination statement than I could ever make. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basalisk, you are nominating my article for deletion, based solely on the fact that you don't like my citation? Wouldn't the more prudent approach allow the article to remain and evolve through the usual wiki way? My citation isn't good enough, that's fine. Find some other citation that is better. Do you not accept the fact that fashionista is a term in common parlance? If we deleted every article because they start out weak, or as stubs, wikipedia would be a very small encyclopedia indeed. I added the term because I found that most people who use it, are unconscious of the fact that the term is derived from a reference to an authoritarian socialist party from Central America. I thought a bit of history might be illuminating. While it is true that Wikipedia is "not a dictionary," there are terms and phrases that have articles in them because the simple definition is not sufficient. Perhaps this is the case here, but perhaps expansion is warranted. Surely we wouldn't erase the article on "Cool (aesthetic)" simple because it describes a common phrase? I'm curious to know your thoughts. -Fogelmatrix (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Actually, I'm nominating it based on the fact that wikipedia is not a dictionary. You should create this on wiktionary, if it doesn't already exist there.
2. Why don't you find a better citation, instead of using a worthless one and then demand that someone else clean up after you?
3. As for other articles which you feel violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss my point. I am merely stating that while an article is in it's infancy, it may not be up to scratch. Instead of marking it for deletion a minute after it's created, why not mark it for expansion? Label it a stub, instead of putting on the chopping block. The whole point of Wikipedia is that any one person may start an article, and another may expand upon it. If this article is too close to a dictionary definition, then wait for someone (it might even be me) to expand upon the subject. You don't have to expand the article, but someone might. If the article is no more than a dictionary definition a year from now, then by all means, delete it. Move it to wiktionary. But give it a chance to grow at least. -Fogelmatrix (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who is missing the point. Deletion is not for articles that are incomplete or inadequate, it is for articles that are inappropriate. It doesn't matter how long it's here for or how much it's "improved"; it would still just be as inappropriate as it is today. "Expansion" and "improvement" is a noble idea, but it's not going to happen because there's nothing more to say about a dictionary definition than is already said here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have no trouble in assuming good faith on Fogelmatrix's part, but I must agree with the policies cited by the nominator, especially since there are not a couple of citations to back up this interesting but, I think, speculative etymology. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DICTDEF. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source, period. How can we verify that the word was formed in analogy with Sandinista and not for example fascista, which would seem a more plausible candidate? By the way, the word is already on wiktionary.  --Lambiam 01:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per sources: "a term coined by the British popular press" (although the Fried sources do disprove this, this is still a published source so can be cited and then rebutted. 1. According to a snippet view for this book, "The term "Fashionista" was coined by Stephen Fried in his book. Thing of Beauty: the Tragedy of Supermodel Gia, to describe those who "toil daily in the beauty trenches." 2 2a. Coined in the 1990s, originally in reference to women, but now applicable to men and means "anyone passionately involved with trends".3a3b (you'll need to piece the two snippets together). These sources may explain why it was linked to "sandinista" 4 5. At the very least I would support/suggest a redirect to say, Fashion victim. Mabalu (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to qualify under WP:NEO Mabalu (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look up what Fried actually wrote, he coined fashionistas to describe "the army of models, photographers, designers, hair and makeup people, stylists and editors who toiled daily in the beauty trenches" (Thing of Beauty: The Tragedy of Supermodel Gia, p. 100). Very different from what the source So Many Shoes, So Little Money states as what Fried described with the word. While verifiability trumps truth, we must not knowingly cite sources for statements that we know to be factually incorrect. This also applies to the statement from The Aesthetic Economy of Fashion, which is clearly bested by the OED when it comes to reliability as an authority for the origin of words. If the article is kept (which I don't recommend), the change of meaning of the word is observed in this NYT column by William Safire and so can be reliably sourced. See also www.stephenfried.com/fashionista.html.  --Lambiam 11:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (with possible redirect) it's a widely used term but still a dictionary definition. Is there anything to be said about the topic that isn't covered in fashion victim, etc? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (recommendation) as a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ----> Carrite (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above rationale. A dictionary definition without the proper sources to expand to anything beyond that, and nothing to verify the supposed etymology. Rorshacma (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (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.